Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections in Fully mRNA-Vaccinated Individuals: Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundCOVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, while being relatively safe in trial studies. However, vaccine breakthrough infections have been reported.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully mRNA-vaccinated individuals.MethodsWe conducted a series of observational retrospective analyses using the electronic health records (EHRs) of the Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York Presbyterian (CUIMC/NYP) up to September 21, 2021. New York City (NYC) adult residences with at least 1 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) record were included in this analysis. Poisson regression was performed to assess the association between the breakthrough infection rate in vaccinated individuals and multiple risk factors—including vaccine brand, demographics, and underlying conditions—while adjusting for calendar month, prior number of visits, and observational days in the EHR.ResultsThe overall estimated breakthrough infection rate was 0.16 (95% CI 0.14-0.18). Individuals who were vaccinated with Pfizer/BNT162b2 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] against Moderna/mRNA-1273=1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35) were male (IRR against female=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94) and had compromised immune systems (IRR=1.48, 95% CI 1.09-2.00) were at the highest risk for breakthrough infections. Among all underlying conditions, those with primary immunodeficiency, a history of organ transplant, an active tumor, use of immunosuppressant medications, or Alzheimer disease were at the highest risk.ConclusionsAlthough we found both mRNA vaccines were effective, Moderna/mRNA-1273 had a lower incidence rate of breakthrough infections. Immunocompromised and male individuals were among the highest risk groups experiencing breakthrough infections. Given the rapidly changing nature of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, continued monitoring and a generalizable analysis pipeline are warranted to inform quick updates on vaccine effectiveness in real time.     

Changes in Parental Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccination and Routine Childhood Vaccination During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Repeated Cross-sectional Survey Study

BackgroundIt was reported that one in four parents were hesitant about vaccinating their children in China. Previous studies have revealed a declining trend in the vaccine willingness rate in China. There is a need to monitor the level of parental vaccine hesitancy toward routine childhood vaccination and hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess changes in trends of parental attitudes toward routine childhood vaccines and COVID-19 vaccinations across different time periods in China.MethodsThree waves of cross-sectional surveys were conducted on parents residing in Wuxi City in Jiangsu Province, China from September to October 2020, February to March 2021, and May to June 2021. Participants were recruited from immunization clinics. Chi-square tests were used to compare the results of the three surveys, controlling for sociodemographic factors. Binary and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors related to parental vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine willingness.ResultsOverall, 2881, 1038, and 1183 participants were included in the survey’s three waves. Using the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, 7.8% (225/2881), 15.1% (157/1038), and 5.5% (65/1183) of parents showed hesitancy to childhood vaccination (P<.001), and 59.3% (1709/2881), 64.6% (671/1038), and 92% (1088/1183) of parents agreed to receive a COVID-19 vaccine themselves in the first, second, and third surveys, respectively (P<.001). In all three surveys, “concerns about vaccine safety and side effects” was the most common reason for refusal.ConclusionsThere has been an increasing acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in Wuxi City, China. Effective interventions are needed to mitigate public concerns about vaccine safety.     

SIRVA (Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration) following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: Case discussion and literature review

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is an increasingly recognised complication after vaccination and presents with significant shoulder pain and stiffness. SIRVA is thought to occur as a result of improper administration of vaccine into the subdeltoid bursa or shoulder joint. This results in an inflammatory cascade that damages the structures in the shoulder region. The incidence of SIRVA is relatively higher for influenza vaccination due its widespread administration. We present a reported case of SIRVA following a mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and review the current literature. As we embark on a worldwide scale of COVID-19 vaccination, it is of utmost important that we use proper vaccination techniques and screen patients at risk of SIRVA. This would improve the efficacy of the vaccine and improve the outcomes of the vaccination programme.     

COVID-19: A Vaccine Priority Index Mapping Tool for Rapidly Assessing Priority Populations in North Carolina

Background: The initial limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. presented significant allocation, distribution, and delivery challenges. Information that can assist health officials, hospital administrators and other decision makers with readily identifying who and where to target vaccine resources and efforts can improve public health response.Objective: The objective of this project was to develop a publicly available geographical information system (GIS) web mapping tool that would assist North Carolina health officials readily identify high-risk, high priority population groups and facilities in the immunization decision making process.Methods: Publicly available data were used to identify 14 key health and socio-demographic variables and 5 differing themes (social and economic status; minority status and language; housing situation; at risk population; and health status). Vaccine priority population index (VPI) scores were created by calculating a percentile rank for each variable over each N.C. Census tract. All Census tracts (N = 2,195) values were ranked from lowest to highest (0.0 to 1.0) with a non-zero population and mapped using ArcGIS.Results: The VPI tool was made publicly available (https://enchealth.org/) during the pandemic to readily assist with identifying high risk population priority areas in N.C. for the planning, distribution, and delivery of COVID-19 vaccine.Discussion: While health officials may have benefitted by using the VPI tool during the pandemic, a more formal evaluation process is needed to fully assess its usefulness, functionality, and limitations.Conclusion: When considering COVID-19 immunization efforts, the VPI tool can serve as an added component in the decision-making process.     

Public Preferences for Policies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens’ preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase.ResultsRespondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination.ConclusionsThis study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported.     

Safety of simultaneous vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

IntroductionSafety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).MethodsWe utilized VSD’s COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1–21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1–42 days following dose 2 by SV type received (“All SV”, “Influenza SV”, “Non-influenza SV”).ResultsSV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06–4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10–7.06) in the “All SV” group following dose 1, and for Bell’s palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14–6.97) in the “Influenza SV” group following dose 2.ConclusionCombined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing.     

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Uptake of Influenza Vaccine: UK-Wide Observational Study

BackgroundIn the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK National Health Service (NHS) extended eligibility for influenza vaccination this season to approximately 32.4 million people (48.8% of the population). Knowing the intended uptake of the vaccine will inform supply and public health messaging to maximize vaccination.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the acceptance of influenza vaccination in the 2020-2021 season, specifically focusing on people who were previously eligible but routinely declined vaccination and newly eligible people.MethodsIntention to receive the influenza vaccine in 2020-2021 was asked of all registrants of the largest electronic personal health record in the NHS by a web-based questionnaire on July 31, 2020. Of those who were either newly or previously eligible but had not previously received an influenza vaccination, multivariable logistic regression and network diagrams were used to examine their reasons to undergo or decline vaccination.ResultsAmong 6641 respondents, 945 (14.2%) were previously eligible but were not vaccinated; of these, 536 (56.7%) intended to receive an influenza vaccination in 2020-2021, as did 466 (68.6%) of the newly eligible respondents. Intention to receive the influenza vaccine was associated with increased age, index of multiple deprivation quintile, and considering oneself to be at high risk from COVID-19. Among those who were eligible but not intending to be vaccinated in 2020-2021, 164/543 (30.2%) gave reasons based on misinformation. Of the previously unvaccinated health care workers, 47/96 (49%) stated they would decline vaccination in 2020-2021.ConclusionsIn this sample, COVID-19 has increased acceptance of influenza vaccination in previously eligible but unvaccinated people and has motivated substantial uptake in newly eligible people. This study is essential for informing resource planning and the need for effective messaging campaigns to address negative misconceptions, which is also necessary for COVID-19 vaccination programs.     

Association of Sources of COVID-19 Information with Vaccine Uptake,Preventive Behaviors,and Perceived Severity of COVID-19

ObjectiveTo investigate the association of using informal sources and reliance on multiple sources of information with actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the number of doses of vaccine received, COVID-19 testing, essential preventive measures, and perceived severity of COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsOur study sample consisted of 9584 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, representing a weighted 50,029,030 beneficiaries from the Winter 2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Supplement.MethodsTwo key independent variables were whether a respondent relied on a formal source (ie, traditional news, government guidance, or health care providers) or an informal source (ie, social media, Internet, or friends/family) the most for the COVID-19 information and the total number of information sources a respondent relied on.ResultsCompared with beneficiaries relying on formal sources of information, those relying on informal sources of information were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.75) and COVID-19 testing (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.98), to engage in preventive behaviors (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50–0.74), to have high perception of COVID-19 severity, and were more likely to be unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.41–1.91). Relying on more information sources was significantly associated with higher odds of actual vaccine uptake (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17–1.26), COVID-19 testing (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), engagement of essential preventive behaviors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.25–1.42), having high perception of COVID-19 severity, and with lower likelihood of being unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (RRR, 0.82; 0.79–0.85).Conclusions and ImplicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has made communicating information about coronavirus more important than ever. Our findings suggest that information from formal sources with expertise and more balanced sources of information were key to effective communication to prevent from COVID-19 infection among older adults.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Residents and Staff Members of Assisted Living and Residential Care Communities—Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program,December 2020–April 2021

ObjectivesIn December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), including assisted living (AL) and other residential care (RC) communities. We aimed to assess vaccine uptake in these communities and identify characteristics that might impact uptake.DesignCross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsAL/RC communities in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program that had ≥1 on-site vaccination clinic during December 18, 2020–April 21, 2021.MethodsWe estimated uptake using the cumulative number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered and normalizing by the number of AL/RC community beds. We estimated the percentage of residents vaccinated in 3 states using AL census counts. We linked community vaccine administration data with county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) measures to calculate median vaccine uptake by SVI tertile.ResultsIn AL communities, a median of 67 residents [interquartile range (IQR): 48-90] and 32 staff members (IQR: 15-60) per 100 beds received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine at the first on-site clinic; in RC, a median of 8 residents (IQR: 5-10) and 5 staff members (IQR: 2-12) per 10 beds received a first dose. Among 3 states with available AL resident census data, median resident first-dose uptake at the first clinic was 93% (IQR: 85-108) in Connecticut, 85% in Georgia (IQR: 70-102), and 78% (IQR: 56-91) in Tennessee. Among both residents and staff, cumulative first-dose vaccine uptake increased with increasing social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation.Conclusions and ImplicationsCOVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in LTCFs is a public health priority. On-site clinics may help to increase vaccine uptake, particularly when transportation may be a barrier. Ensuring steady access to COVID-19 vaccine in LTCFs following the conclusion of the Pharmacy Partnership is critical to maintaining high vaccination coverage among residents and staff.     

Effectiveness of Systemic Corticosteroids Therapy for Nonsevere Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter,Retrospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study

ObjectivesCorticosteroids were clinically used in the treatment of nonsevere patients with COVID-19, but the efficacy of such treatment lacked sufficient clinical evidence, and the impact of dose had never been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of systemic corticosteroid use (SCU) in nonsevere patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study in Hubei Province. A total of 1726 patients admitted with nonsevere type COVID-19 were included. Mixed-effect Cox model, mixed-effect Cox model with time-varying exposure, multiple linear regression, and propensity score analysis (inverse probability of treatment weight and propensity score matching) were used to explore the association between SCU and progression into severe type, all-cause mortality, and length of stay.ResultsDuring the follow-up of 30 days, 29.8% of nonsevere patients with COVID-19 received treatment with systemic corticosteroids. The use of systemic corticosteroids was associated with higher probability of developing severe type (adjusted hazard ratio 1.81; 95% confidence interval 1.47-2.21), all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.92; 95% confidence interval 1.39-6.15) in time-varying Cox analysis, and prolonged hospitalization (β 4.14; P < .001) in multiple linear regression. Analysis with 2 propensity score cohorts displayed similar results. Besides, increased corticosteroid dose was significantly associated with elevated probability of developing severe type (P < .001) and prolonged hospitalization (P < .001).ConclusionsCorticosteroid treatment against nonsevere patients with COVID-19 was significantly associated with worse clinical outcomes. The higher dose was significantly associated with elevated risk of poor disease progression. We recommend that SCU should be avoided unless necessary among nonsevere patients with COVID-19.     

Evaluation of Effectiveness of Global COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign

To model estimated deaths averted by COVID-19 vaccines, we used state-of-the-art mathematical modeling, likelihood-based inference, and reported COVID-19 death and vaccination data. We estimated that >1.5 million deaths were averted in 12 countries. Our model can help assess effectiveness of the vaccination program, which is crucial for curbing the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Risk of Death in Nursing Home Residents After COVID-19 Vaccination

ObjectivesIn the first months of 2021, the Dutch COVID-19 vaccination campaign was disturbed by reports of death in Norwegian nursing homes (NHs) after vaccination. Reports predominantly concerned persons >65 years of age with 1 or more comorbidities. Also, in the Netherlands adverse events were reported after COVID-19 vaccination in this vulnerable group. Yet, it was unclear whether a causal link between vaccination and death existed. Therefore, we investigated the risk of death after COVID-19 vaccination in Dutch NH residents compared with the risk of death in NH residents prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignPopulation-based longitudinal cohort study with electronic health record data.Setting and ParticipantsWe studied Dutch NH residents from 73 NHs who received 1 or 2 COVID-19 vaccination(s) between January 13 and April 16, 2021 (n = 21,762). As a historical comparison group, we included Dutch NH residents who were registered in the same period in 2019 (n = 27,591).MethodsData on vaccination status, age, gender, type of care, comorbidities, and date of NH entry and (if applicable) discharge or date of death were extracted from electronic health records. Risk of death after 30 days was evaluated and compared between vaccinated residents and historical comparison residents with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Regression analyses were adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities, and length of stay.ResultsRisk of death in NH residents after one COVID-19 vaccination (regardless of whether a second vaccination was given) was decreased compared with historical comparison residents from 2019 (adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86). The risk of death further decreased after 2 vaccinations compared with the historical comparison group (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50-0.64).Conclusions and ImplicationsWe found no indication that risk of death in NH residents is increased after COVID-19 vaccination. These results indicate that COVID-19 vaccination in NH residents is safe and could reduce fear and resistance toward vaccination.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions,Intentions, and Uptake Among Young Adults in the United States: Prospective College-Based Cohort Study

BackgroundUptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among US young adults, particularly those that belong to racial and ethnic minorities, remains low compared to their older peers. Understanding vaccine perceptions and their influence on vaccination uptake among this population remains crucial to achieving population herd immunity.ObjectiveWe sought to study perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines as well as intended and actual vaccine uptake among one population of college students, faculty, and staff.MethodsAs part of a larger study aimed at investigating the dynamics of COVID-19 transmission, serology, and perception on a college campus, participants were asked about their views on the COVID-19 vaccine in February 2021. Vaccination status was assessed by self-report in April 2021. Logistic regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios with marginal standardization.ResultsWe found that non-White participants were 25% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccination compared to White participants. Among those who were unvaccinated, Black and other non-White participants were significantly more likely to indicate they were unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine compared to White participants. The most common reason for unwillingness to receive the vaccine was belief that the vaccine approval process was rushed.ConclusionsThere are racial differences in perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine among young adults, and these differences might differentially impact vaccine uptake among young racial and ethnic minorities. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake among college populations might require campaigns specifically tailored to these minority groups.     

Severity of COVID-19 among Residents in Aged Care Facilities in Victoria,Australia: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing the Delta and Omicron Epidemic Periods

ObjectivesDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, no country with widespread community transmission has avoided outbreaks or deaths in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). As RACF residents are at high risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, understanding disease severity risk factors is imperative.DesignThis retrospective cohort study aimed to compare COVID-19 disease severity (hospitalization and deaths) and associated risk factors among RACF residents in Victoria, Australia, across Delta and Omicron epidemic periods.Settings and ParticipantsResident case hospitalization risk (HR) and case fatality risk (CFR) were assessed using Victorian RACFs COVID-19 outbreaks data across 2 epidemic periods; Delta, 994 resident cases linked to 86 outbreaks; and Omicron, 1882 resident cases linked to 209 outbreaks.MethodsAdjusting for outbreak-level clustering, age, sex, up-to-date vaccination status, and time since last vaccination, the odds of hospitalization and death were compared using mixed effects logistic regression.ResultsThe HR and CFR was lower during the Omicron period compared with the Delta period [HR 8.2% vs 24.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.26, and CFR: 11.4% vs 18.7%, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28-0.56]. During both periods, males had higher odds of hospitalization and odds of death; being up to date with vaccination reduced odds of hospitalization by 40% (excluding nonemergency patient transfers) and odds of death by 43%; and for each month since last vaccination, odds of hospitalization increased by 9% and odds of death by 16%.Conclusions and ImplicationsThis study provides empirical evidence of lower COVID-19 severity among RACF residents in the Omicron period and highlights the importance of up-to-date and timely vaccination to reduce disease severity in this cohort.     

Characterizing Anchoring Bias in Vaccine Comparator Selection Due to Health Care Utilization With COVID-19 and Influenza: Observational Cohort Study

BackgroundObservational data enables large-scale vaccine safety surveillance but requires careful evaluation of the potential sources of bias. One potential source of bias is the index date selection procedure for the unvaccinated cohort or unvaccinated comparison time (“anchoring”).ObjectiveHere, we evaluated the different index date selection procedures for 2 vaccinations: COVID-19 and influenza.MethodsFor each vaccine, we extracted patient baseline characteristics on the index date and up to 450 days prior and then compared them to the characteristics of the unvaccinated patients indexed on (1) an arbitrary date or (2) a date of a visit. Additionally, we compared vaccinated patients indexed on the date of vaccination and the same patients indexed on a prior date or visit.ResultsCOVID-19 vaccination and influenza vaccination differ drastically from each other in terms of the populations vaccinated and their status on the day of vaccination. When compared to indexing on a visit in the unvaccinated population, influenza vaccination had markedly higher covariate proportions, and COVID-19 vaccination had lower proportions of most covariates on the index date. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccination had similar covariate proportions when compared to an arbitrary date. These effects attenuated, but were still present, with a longer lookback period. The effect of day 0 was present even when the patients served as their own controls.ConclusionsPatient baseline characteristics are sensitive to the choice of the index date. In vaccine safety studies, unexposed index event should represent vaccination settings. Study designs previously used to assess influenza vaccination must be reassessed for COVID-19 to account for a potentially healthier population and lack of medical activity on the day of vaccination.     

The Reliability and Quality of YouTube Videos as a Source of Public Health Information Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination: Cross-sectional Study

BackgroundRecent emergency authorization and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines by regulatory bodies has generated global attention. As the most popular video-sharing platform globally, YouTube is a potent medium for the dissemination of key public health information. Understanding the nature of available content regarding COVID-19 vaccination on this widely used platform is of substantial public health interest.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of information on COVID-19 vaccination in YouTube videos.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the phrases “coronavirus vaccine” and “COVID-19 vaccine” were searched on the UK version of YouTube on December 10, 2020. The 200 most viewed videos of each search were extracted and screened for relevance and English language. Video content and characteristics were extracted and independently rated against Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct and DISCERN quality criteria for consumer health information by 2 authors.ResultsForty-eight videos, with a combined total view count of 30,100,561, were included in the analysis. Topics addressed comprised the following: vaccine science (n=18, 58%), vaccine trials (n=28, 58%), side effects (n=23, 48%), efficacy (n=17, 35%), and manufacturing (n=8, 17%). Ten (21%) videos encouraged continued public health measures. Only 2 (4.2%) videos made nonfactual claims. The content of 47 (98%) videos was scored to have low (n=27, 56%) or moderate (n=20, 42%) adherence to Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct principles. Median overall DISCERN score per channel type ranged from 40.3 (IQR 34.8-47.0) to 64.3 (IQR 58.5-66.3). Educational channels produced by both medical and nonmedical professionals achieved significantly higher DISCERN scores than those of other categories. The highest median DISCERN scores were achieved by educational videos produced by medical professionals (64.3, IQR 58.5-66.3) and the lowest median scores by independent users (18, IQR 18-20).ConclusionsThe overall quality and reliability of information on COVID-19 vaccines on YouTube remains poor. Videos produced by educational channels, especially by medical professionals, were higher in quality and reliability than those produced by other sources, including health-related organizations. Collaboration between health-related organizations and established medical and educational YouTube content producers provides an opportunity for the dissemination of high-quality information on COVID-19 vaccination. Such collaboration holds potential as a rapidly implementable public health intervention aiming to engage a wide audience and increase public vaccination awareness and knowledge.     

YouTube Videos and Informed Decision-Making About COVID-19 Vaccination: Successive Sampling Study

BackgroundSocial media platforms such as YouTube are used by many people to seek and share health-related information that may influence their decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to improve the understanding about the sources and content of widely viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsUsing the keywords “coronavirus vaccination,” we searched for relevant YouTube videos, sorted them by view count, and selected two successive samples (with replacement) of the 100 most widely viewed videos in July and December 2020, respectively. Content related to COVID-19 vaccines were coded by two observers, and inter-rater reliability was demonstrated.ResultsThe videos observed in this study were viewed over 55 million times cumulatively. The number of videos that addressed fear increased from 6 in July to 20 in December 2020, and the cumulative views correspondingly increased from 2.6% (1,449,915 views) to 16.6% (9,553,368 views). There was also a large increase in the number of videos and cumulative views with respect to concerns about vaccine effectiveness, from 6 videos with approximately 6 million views in July to 25 videos with over 12 million views in December 2020. The number of videos and total cumulative views covering adverse reactions almost tripled, from 11 videos with approximately 6.5 million (11.7% of cumulative views) in July to 31 videos with almost 15.7 million views (27.2% of cumulative views) in December 2020.ConclusionsOur data show the potentially inaccurate and negative influence social media can have on population-wide vaccine uptake, which should be urgently addressed by agencies of the United States Public Health Service as well as its global counterparts.     

Multilevel Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among South Asian Ethnic Minorities in Hong Kong: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a disproportionate effect on ethnic minorities. Across countries, greater vaccine hesitancy has been observed among ethnic minorities. After excluding foreign domestic helpers, South Asians make up the largest proportion of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. It is necessary to plan for COVID-19 vaccination promotional strategies that cater to the unique needs of South Asians in Hong Kong.ObjectiveThis study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among a sample of South Asians in Hong Kong. We examined the effects of sociodemographic data and factors at individual level (perceptions), interpersonal level (information exposure on social media), and sociostructural level (cultural) based on the socioecological model.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted on May 1-31, 2021. Participants were South Asian people aged 18 years or older living in Hong Kong; able to comprehend English, Hindi, Nepali, or Urdu; and having access to a smartphone. Three community-based organizations providing services to South Asians in Hong Kong facilitated the data collection. The staff of the community-based organizations posted the study information in WhatsApp groups involving South Asian clients and invited them to participate in a web-based survey. Logistic regression models were fit for data analysis.ResultsAmong 245 participants, 81 (33.1%) had taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (one dose, 62/245, 25.2%; and both doses, 19/245, 7.9%). After adjusting for significant background characteristics, cultural and religious reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were associated with lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97; P=.02). At the individual level, having more positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination (AOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.55; P=.002), perceived support from significant others (AOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.60; P=.03), and perceived higher behavioral control to receive COVID-19 vaccination (AOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.65-4.19; P<.001) were associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake, while a negative association was found between negative attitudes and the dependent variable (AOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.85; P<.001). Knowing more peers who had taken the COVID-19 vaccine was also associated with higher uptake (AOR 1.39, 95% CI 1.11-1.74; P=.01). At the interpersonal level, higher exposure to information about deaths and other serious conditions caused by COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower uptake (AOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86; P=.01).ConclusionsIn this study, one-third (81/245) of our participants received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Cultural or religious reasons, perceptions, information exposure on social media, and influence of peers were found to be the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among South Asians. Future programs should engage community groups, champions, and faith leaders, and develop culturally competent interventions.     

全球新冠疫苗研发与接种策略进展

WHO于2023年5月5日宣布新型冠状病毒感染(corona virus disease 2019,COVID-19)疫情不再构成国际关注的突发公共卫生事件。全球疫情相对稳定,但是各国仍不能放松对COVID-19的警惕。接种新冠疫苗仍是有效的预防手段。本文主要围绕当前全球新冠疫苗研发进展、不同国家疫苗接种策略调整情况等进行对比分析,并结合WHO推荐对新冠疫苗接种策略的最新指导意见,分析探讨全球新冠疫苗研发及各国疫苗接种策略对我国的启示,提出适合我国国情的针对性疫苗接种建议。