Persuading the “Movable Middle”: Characteristics of effective messages to promote routine and COVID-19 vaccinations for adults and children – The impact of COVID-19 on beliefs and attitudes

PurposeWe sought to 1) explore trusted sources for vaccine information, 2) describe persuasive characteristics of trusted messages promoting routine and COVID-19 vaccines for children and adults and 3) explore how the pandemic has impacted attitudes and beliefs about routine vaccinations.We conducted a mixed method cross-sectional study between May 3-June 14, 2021 including a survey and six focus groups among a sub-set of survey respondents. A total of 1,553 survey respondents (from which n = 33 participated in the focus groups) including adults without children under age nineteen years (n = 582) and parents with children under age nineteen years (n = 971).ResultsPrimary care providers, family, and credible sources, characterized as known and well-established entities, were top sources of vaccine information.Neutrality, honesty, and having a trusted source to rely on in sorting through volumes of sometimes conflicting information were highly valued. Trustworthy qualities about sources included: 1) expertise, 2) fact-based, 3) unbiased, and 4) having an established process for sharing information. Because of the evolving nature of the pandemic, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine and sources of COVID-19 information differed from typical views about routine vaccines.Of 1,327 (85.4 %) survey respondents, 12.7 % and 9.4 % of adults and parents cited that the pandemic impacted their attitudes and beliefs. Among these respondents, 8 % of adults and 3 % of parents cited more favorable attitudes and beliefs about getting vaccinated with routine vaccines because of the pandemic.ConclusionVaccine attitudes and beliefs which inform intent to vaccinate can change and differ among different vaccines. Messaging should be tailored to resonate with parents and adults to improve vaccine uptake.     

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and hesitancy amongst parents of school-aged children during the pediatric vaccine rollout

BackgroundThe United States has the highest number of total cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide (Johns Hopkins COVID Dashboard, 2021). Despite COVID-19 vaccine availability, uptake in the United States has been slow and vaccine hesitancy has been a significant barrier to achieving widespread vaccine uptake. Understanding determinants of vaccine acceptance is essential to implement successful population health interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe developed an anonymous cross-sectional parent survey to assess factors associated with parent and child COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy during the initial pediatric vaccine rollout amongst adolescents 16 years +. The survey was sent via email to 25,308 parents registered to the Alachua County Public School System in May 2021 and remained active until July 2021.FindingsThere were a total of 2,620 survey responses. Overall, 31.5 % of parents with children ages 16 years + reported their child had received the COVID-19 vaccine, 65.2 % reported their (eligible) child had not received the vaccine, and 3.3 % reported their child was scheduled for the vaccine. A majority of parents (60.9 %) reported they planned to vaccinate all of their children once the COVID-19 vaccine was available for their children’s age. COVID-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents ages 16 + reported by Hispanic and White parents was two times higher than that reported by Black parents. Parent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake were associated with increased child COVID-19 vaccination. The most commonly reported reasons why parents chose not to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 were concerns about long–term negative side effects (75.7 %) and a negative reaction (56.5 %). Medical providers were reported as the most trusted source of information.ConclusionOur study provides insight into determinants of vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, and trusted sources of information that may be helpful to develop targeted interventions to increase youth COVID-19 vaccination.     

Trends in COVID-19 vaccination intent and factors associated with deliberation and reluctance among adult homeless shelter residents and staff, 1 November 2020 to 28 February 2021 – King County,Washington

IntroductionLittle is known about COVID-19 vaccination intent among people experiencing homelessness. This study assesses surveyed COVID-19 vaccination intent among adult homeless shelter residents and staff and identifies factors associated with vaccine deliberation (responded “undecided”) and reluctance (responded “no”), including time trends.MethodsFrom 11/1/2020–2/28/21, we conducted repeated cross-sectional surveys at nine shelters in King County, WA as part of ongoing community-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. We used a multinomial model to identify characteristics associated with vaccine deliberation and reluctance.ResultsA total of 969 unique staff (n = 297) and residents (n = 672) participated and provided 3966 survey responses. Among residents, 53.7% (n = 361) were vaccine accepting, 28.1% reluctant, 17.6% deliberative, and 0.6% already vaccinated, whereas among staff 56.2% were vaccine accepting, 14.1% were reluctant, 16.5% were deliberative, and 13.1% already vaccinated at their last survey. We observed higher odds of vaccine deliberation or reluctance among Black/African American individuals, those who did not receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, and those with lower educational attainment. There was no significant trend towards vaccine acceptance.ConclusionsStrong disparities in vaccine intent based on race, education, and prior vaccine history were observed. Increased vaccine intent over the study period was not detected. An intersectional, person-centered approach to addressing health inequities by public health authorities planning vaccination campaigns in shelters is recommended.Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.     

COVID-19 vaccine deliberation in individuals directly impacted by incarceration

Delays in vaccinating communities of color to COVID-19 have signaled a need to investigate structural barriers to vaccine uptake, with mass incarceration demanding greater characterization as a potential factor. In a nationally representative survey from February-March 2021 (N = 1,157), exposure to the criminal legal system, defined as having been incarcerated in prison or jail or having had a family member or close friend incarcerated, was associated with higher odds for COVID-19 vaccine deliberation. Individuals with criminal legal system exposure reported lower confidence in physician recommendation as a reason to get vaccinated. They were also more likely to decline vaccination out of fear it would cause COVID-19 infection, and that the vaccine might be promoted as a political tool. Our analysis suggests that populations impacted by the criminal legal system would benefit from targeted vaccine outreach by trusted community members who can address distrust during current and future pandemics.     

Impact of a COVID-19 certificate requirement on vaccine uptake pattern and intention for future vaccination. A cross-sectional study among French adults

BackgroundIn August 2021, France enacted a COVID-19 certificate requirement (vaccination/recovery/test) to access specific services, with mandates for professional groups. We evaluated the impact of this incentive-coercive policy in terms of vaccine uptake equality, future vaccine intention and confidence in authorities’ crisis management.MethodsIn late August 2021, a representative sample of adults (18–75 years) completed an internet-based questionnaire. We classified vaccinated participants by stated reasons for vaccination and estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using multivariable Poisson regression. Counterfactual vaccine status assumed non-vaccination of those vaccinated for the certificate. We analysed the association of free-text testimonial themes with level of confidence in authorities.ResultsAmong 972 participants, 85.7% were vaccinated or intended vaccination: 3.6% only for certificate/mandate, 17.7% mainly for certificate/mandate plus other reasons, and 64.4% mainly for other reasons. In the counterfactual situation, vaccine uptake would have been significantly more likely among older vs. younger participants (aPR = 1.35) and among those with moderate-high vs. low levels of confidence in authorities for COVID-19 crisis management (aPR = 2.04). In the observed situation, confidence was the only significant determinant of vaccine status (moderate-high vs. low, aPR = 1.39). Among those without genuine motivation for vaccination, professionally active persons were more likely to have ceded to the certificate requirement (aPR = 3.76). Those vaccinated only for the certificate were more likely to express future COVID-19 vaccine intention than unvaccinated persons (aPR = 6.41). Themes significantly associated with lower confidence were criticism of morality (aPR = 1.76) and poor communication by the authorities (aPR = 1.66).ConclusionThe incentive-coercive policy has reduced the negative association of vaccine status with younger age and low confidence in authorities, but may have reinforced isolation of professionally inactive persons. The requirement did not negatively impact future COVID-19 vaccine intention. Future vaccine-incentive policies should pay special attention to populations with low levels of confidence in authorities.     

Social inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents in Montreal,Canada

BackgroundThe success of current and prospective COVID-19 vaccine campaigns for children and adolescents will in part depend on the willingness of parents to accept vaccination. This study examined social determinants of parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents.MethodsWe used cross-sectional data from an ongoing COVID-19 cohort study in Montreal, Canada and included all parents of 2 to 18-year-olds who completed an online questionnaire between May 18 and June 26, 2021 (n = 809). We calculated child age-adjusted prevalence estimates of vaccine acceptance by parental education, race/ethnicity, birthplace, household income, and neighbourhood, and used multinomial logistic regression to estimate adjusted prevalence differences (aPD) and ratios (aPR). Social determinants of vaccine uptake were examined for the vaccine-eligible sample of 12 to 18 year-olds (n = 306).ResultsIntention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was high, with only 12.4% of parents unlikely to have their child vaccinated. Parents with younger children were less likely to accept vaccination, as were those from lower-income households, racialized groups, and those born outside Canada. Children from households with annual incomes <$100,000 had 18.4 percent lower prevalence of being vaccinated/very likely vaccinated compared to household incomes ≥$150,000 (95% CI: 10.1 to 26.7). Racialized parents reported greater unwillingness to vaccinate vs. White parents (aPD = 10.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 19.1). Vaccine-eligible adolescents from the most deprived neighbourhood were half as likely to be vaccinated compared to those from the least deprived neighbourhood (aPR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.77).Interpretation.This study identified marked social inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents. Efforts are needed to reach disadvantaged and marginalized populations with tailored strategies that promote informed decision making and facilitate access to vaccination.     

Let's talk about COVID-19 vaccination: Relevance of conversations about COVID-19 vaccination and information sources on vaccination intention in Switzerland

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is known to be more pronounced among young people. However, there are a lack of studies examining determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention in the general population in this young age-group in Switzerland, and in particular, studies investigating the influence of information sources and social networks on vaccination intention are missing.MethodsThe cross-sectional study “COVIDisc – Discussion with young people about the corona pandemic” provided the opportunity to investigate COVID-19 vaccination intention in 893 individuals aged 15–34 years from the cantons of Zurich, Thurgau, and Ticino in Switzerland. An online survey was administered between 10 November 2020 and 5 January 2021. Associations of public information sources and conversations about COVID-19 with COVID-19 vaccination intention were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and mediation analysis using generalized structural equation modeling.Results51.5% of the participants intended or probably intended to get vaccinated once the vaccine would be available. Using print or online news (AOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.07) as an information source and having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR 2.09, 95% CI 1.52–2.87) increased participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention. The effects of female gender (b = −0.267, p = 0.039) and risk perception (b = 0.163, p = 0.028) were partially mediated by having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine. The effects of age (b = −0.036, p = 0.016), secondary educational level (b = 0.541, p = 0.010) and tertiary educational level (b = 0.726, p = 0.006) were fully mediated via having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionsConversations and campaigns should start even before vaccines become available. Our data support interventions for young women and less educated people using social norms and supporting information seeking with news. Trust and risk perceptions are essential foundations for vaccine intentions.     

Comparison of mRNA vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization by vaccination source: Immunization information systems,electronic medical records,and self-report—IVY Network,February 1–August 31, 2022

BackgroundAccurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1–August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined.ResultsA total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73–0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %–43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %–62%).ConclusionVaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE.     

COVID-19 vaccination coverage in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – A cross-sectional study in Hungary

IntroductionCoronavirus infection is a particular risk for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), because they are much more likely to become severely ill due to oxygen supply problems. Primary prevention, including COVID-19 vaccination is of paramount importance in this disease group. The aim of our study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in COPD patients during the first vaccination campaign of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study (CHANCE) has been conducted in COPD patients in the eastern, western and central regions of Hungary from 15th November 2021. The anthropometric, respiratory function test results and vaccination status of 1,511 randomly selected patients were recorded who were aged 35 years and older.ResultsThe median age was 67 (61–72) years, for men: 67 (62–73) and for women: 66 (60–72) years, with 47.98 % men and 52.02 % women in our sample. The prevalence of vaccination coverage for the first COVID-19 vaccine dose was 88.62 %, whereas 86.57 % of the patients received the second vaccine dose. When unvaccinated (n = 172) and double vaccinated (n = 1308) patients were compared, the difference was significant both in quality of life (CAT: 17 (12–23) vs 14 (10–19); p < 0.001) and severity of dyspnea (mMRC: 2 (2–2) vs 2 (1–2); p = 0.048). The COVID-19 infection rate between double vaccinated and unvaccinated patients was 1.61 % vs 22.67 %; p < 0.001 six months after vaccination. The difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients was significant (8.14 % vs 0.08 %; p < 0.001) among those with acute COVID-19 infection hospitalized. In terms of post-COVID symptoms, single or double vaccinated patients had significantly fewer outpatient hospital admissions than unvaccinated patients (7.56 vs 0 %; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe COVID-19 vaccination coverage was satisfactory in our sample. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines by patients with COPD is of utmost importance because they are much more likely to develop severe complications.     

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.MethodsIn June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.ResultsIn June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel “very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive’ was derived from motivation to protect one’s own or others’ health and resume usual activities; being ‘less receptive’ was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.ConclusionThis study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.     

Where are children ages 5–17 years receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations? Variations over time and by sociodemographic characteristics,United States

BackgroundKnowing the settings where children ages 5–17 years received COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, and how settings changed over time and varied by socio-demographics, is of interest for planning and implementing vaccination programs.MethodsData from the National Immunization Survey-Child COVID-19 Module (NIS-CCM) were analyzed to assess place of COVID-19 vaccination among vaccinated children ages 5–17 years. Interviews from July 2021 thru May 2022 were included in the analyses for a total of n = 39,286 vaccinated children. The percentage of children receiving their COVID-19 vaccine at each type of setting was calculated overall, by sociodemographic characteristics, and by month of receipt of COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsAmong vaccinated children ages 5–11 years, 46.9 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 37.1 % at a pharmacy, 8.1 % at a school, 4.7 % at a mass vaccination site, and 3.2 % at some other non-medical place. Among vaccinated children ages 12–17 years, 35.1 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 47.9 % at a pharmacy, 8.3 % at a mass vaccination site, 4.8 % at a school, and 4.0 % at some other non-medical place. The place varied by time among children ages 12–17 years but minimally for children ages 5–11 years. There was variability in the place of COVID-19 vaccination by age, race/ethnicity, health insurance, urbanicity, and region.ConclusionChildren ages 5–17 years predominantly received their COVID-19 vaccinations at pharmacies and medical places. The large proportion of vaccinated children receiving vaccination at pharmacies is indicative of the success in the United States of expanding the available settings where children could be vaccinated. Medical places continue to play a large role in vaccinating children, especially younger children, and should continue to stock COVID-19 vaccine to keep it available for those who are not yet vaccinated, including the newly recommended group of children < 5 years.     

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and reasons for vaccination among health care workers and household members

BackgroundThe majority of healthcare workers (HCW) in the US report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, yet little is known about vaccine decision-making for their household members, including children.MethodsCross-sectional survey July–August 2021 of HCW and their household members in Minnesota.Results94 % of eligible participants were vaccinated with the most common reasons being wanting to protect oneself, family and loved ones. Safety concerns were the most commonly reported reasons for not being vaccinated; a significantly higher proportion of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated HCW (58 % vs 12 %, p = 0.0035) and household adults (25 % vs 5 %, p = 0.03) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nearly half of unvaccinated adults and two-thirds of unvaccinated children would be vaccinated if a vaccine mandate were in place.ConclusionsDespite high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs, more research is required to identify and address the needs and concerns of healthcare workers who decline COVID-19 vaccination despite availability.     

Tolerance of BNT162b2 mRNA COVI-19 vaccine in patients with a medical history of COVID-19 disease: A case control study

IntroductionStudies evaluating BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety excluded subjects with a previous history of COVID-19 infection. The aim of our study was to focus on the tolerance of this vaccine this population.MethodsAn anonymous self-reporting survey related to safety and tolerance of vaccine was completed by subjects 21 to 28 days after the first vaccine dose in two vaccination centers.ResultsSubjects with prior COVID-19 disease history (n = 61) had higher systemic reactions than subjects without any previous history (n = 1987) (45.9% vs 29.7%, p = 0.01). Asthenia, headache and fever were significantly more frequent in COVID-19 + group than negative group (25.6% vs 15.2% p = 0.045, 19.7% vs 9.3% p = 0.01, 6.5% vs 0.9% p = 0.003 respectively). Grade of severity was higher in COVID-19 + than in COVID-19 - group (p = 0.03).ConclusionOur study confirms a higher risk of side effects in patients with preexisting SARS-CoV-2 disease but with a good overall tolerance.     

Reminders of existing vaccine mandates increase support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate: Evidence from a survey experiment

BackgroundGovernments are trying various strategies to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates, including vaccine mandates. Popular support for such mandates, however, is in flux in many countries, including the United States. The objective of this study is to evaluate if the wording of public health messages could increase popular support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.MethodsWe conducted a survey experiment on a sample of 573 registered voters in South Dakota, United States. Participants in the control group (n = 271) read a short message about mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents in the treatment group (n = 278) read the same message but they were reminded that a variety of vaccine mandates for measles, mumps, rubella, and polio have long been required. Afterwards, both groups were asked about their support for COVID-19 vaccine mandate.ResultsA multivariate ordinary least squares regression analysis revealed that the experimental treatment had a positive and statistically significant impact on support for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (p < 0.001). We also found that COVID-19 vaccination status, religious identity, and political affiliation have a statistically significant effect.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a simple intervention—reminding the public of the existing vaccine mandates—increases support for COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Public health authorities who seek to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates could utilize this approach.     

Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people’s acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsWe conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants’ willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability).ResultsOverall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49–2.02) or if they were moderate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16) or liberal (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07–1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40–1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98).ConclusionsMany adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).     

COVID-19 vaccination intention and behavior in a large,diverse, U.S. refugee population

IntroductionRefugees often face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to their disproportionate representation in the essential workforce and crowded household conditions. There is a paucity of data about risk factors for under-immunization for COVID-19 among refugees.MethodsRefugees were surveyed in two phases that corresponded to before and after wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Participants were asked about their attitudes, and perceptions about COVID-19, previous acceptance of vaccines, sources utilized to obtain trusted health information, and intent to get vaccinated. The overall participant vulnerability was assessed using the social vulnerability index. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with key stakeholders through snowball sampling.ResultsOf 247 refugees, 244 agreed to participate in the initial survey. Among those, 140 (57.4%) intended to get vaccinated, 43 (17.6%) were unsure, and 61 (25%) did not intend to get vaccinated. In the follow up survey, all 215 who were reached, agreed to provide information about their vaccination status. Among those respondents, 141 (65.6%) were either vaccinated or expressed intent to do so, and 74 (34.4%) remained hesitant. We did not observe any significant correlation between socio-demographic variables, country of origin, and vaccination status/intent. Among those who initially intended to get vaccinated, nearly 1 in 5 changed their mind and decided to forego vaccination, and among those who initially did not plan getting vaccinated, 1 in 3 changed their mind and got vaccinated. Fears related to the vaccine, concerns that the vaccine is religiously prohibited, “wait and see” how others did with the vaccine, communication and transportation barriers were commonly cited as reason not to get vaccinated.ConclusionsOver a third of refugees in our study were hesitant to get vaccinated. Refugees desired additional education about the benefits and safety of vaccines along with easier access to vaccination clinics in their communities.     

COVID-19 vaccine intentions in the United States,a social-ecological framework

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a major obstacle for pandemic mitigation. As vaccine hesitancy occurs along multiple dimensions, we used a social-ecological framework to guide the examination of COVID-19 vaccine intentions.MethodsUsing an online survey in the US conducted in July 2020, we examined intentions to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, once available. 592 respondents provided data, including measures of demographics, vaccine history, social norms, perceived risk, and trust in sources of COVID-19 information. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial models were used to compare respondents who intended to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to respondents who did not intend or were ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination.ResultsOnly 59.1% of the sample reported that they intended to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. In the multivariate multinomial model, those respondents who did not intend to be vaccinated, as compared to those who did, had significantly lower levels of trust in the CDC as a source of COVID-19 information (aOR = 0.29, CI = 0.17–0.50), reported lower social norms of COVID-19 preventive behaviors (aOR = 0.67, CI 0.51–0.88), scored higher on COVID-19 Skepticism (aOR = 1.44, CI = 1.28–1.61), identified as more politically conservative (aOR = 1.23, CI = 1.05–1.45), were less likely to have obtained a flu vaccine in the prior year (aOR = 0.21, CI = 0.11–0.39), were less likely to be female (aOR = 0.51, CI = 0.29–0.87), and were much more likely to be Black compared to White (aOR = 10.70, CI = 4.09–28.1). A highly similar pattern was observed among those who were ambivalent about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to those who intended to receive one.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest several avenues for COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaigns, including social network diffusion strategies and cross-partisan messaging, to promote vaccine trust. The racial and gender differences in vaccine intentions also suggest the need to tailor campaigns based on gender and race.     

Association between COVID-19 vaccination status,time elapsed since the last vaccine dose,morbidity, and absenteeism among healthcare personnel: A prospective,multicenter study

AimWe assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination status and time elapsed since the last vaccine dose on morbidity and absenteeism among healthcare personnel (HCP) in the context of a mandatory vaccination policy.MethodsWe followed 7592 HCP from November 15, 2021 through April 17, 2022. Full COVID-19 vaccination was defined as a primary vaccination series plus a booster dose at least six months later.ResultsThere were 6496 (85.6 %) fully vaccinated, 953 (12.5 %) not fully vaccinated, and 143 (1.9 %) unvaccinated HCP. A total of 2182 absenteeism episodes occurred. Of 2088 absenteeism episodes among vaccinated HCP with known vaccination status, 1971 (94.4 %) concerned fully vaccinated and 117 (5.6 %) not fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated HCP had 1.6 fewer days of absence compared to those not fully vaccinated (8.1 versus 9.7; p-value < 0.001). Multivariable regression analyses showed that full vaccination was associated with shorter absenteeism compared to not full vaccination (OR: 0.56; 95 % CI: 0.36–0.87; p-value = 0.01). Compared to a history of ≤ 17.1 weeks since the last dose, a history of > 17.1 weeks since the last dose was associated with longer absenteeism (OR: 1.22, 95 % CI:1.02–1.46; p-value = 0.026) and increased risk for febrile episode (OR: 1.33; 95 % CI: 1.09–1.63; p-value = 0.004), influenza-like illness (OR: 1.53, 95 % CI: 1.02–2.30; p-value = 0.038), and COVID-19 (OR: 1.72; 95 % CI: 1.24–2.39; p-value = 0.001).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to impose a considerable impact on HCP. The administration of a vaccine dose in less than four months before significantly protected against COVID-19 and absenteeism duration, irrespective of COVID-19 vaccination status. Defining the optimal timing of boosters is imperative.