Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: A Review and Call to Action.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith TC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5597904 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: A Review and Call to Action.
Open forum infectious diseases 20170718 3
Vaccine refusal has been a recurring story in the media for well over a decade. Although there is scant evidence that refusal is genuinely increasing in the population, multiple studies have demonstrated concerning patterns of decline of confidence in vaccines, the medical professionals who administer vaccines, and the scientists who study and develop vaccines. As specialists in microbiology, immunology, and infectious diseases, scientists are content experts but often lack the direct contact wi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Articles were eligible if evaluated interventions directly targeted at HCPs/healthcare students. The search was run on 26 January 2022. Articles published in 2016 or after were included.ResultsA total of 17 492 records were identified; 139 articles were selected. Most articles were set in USA (n = 110). Over half had a pre-post design without a control group (n = 78). A total of 41 articles focused on single-component interventions, 60 on multi-component interventions involving only HCPs and/or students and 38 on multi-component interventions involving also other professionals. Main components were in-person education (n = 76), synchronous (n = 10) and asynchronous (n = 23) online learning, educational materials (n = 26), performance assessment and feedback (n = 33), electronic record changes (n = 30), role play/simulation (n = 21) and online games/apps (n = 5). Educational sessions were mainly about scientific update or communication. Outcomes of interventions were grouped in: vaccination rates (n = 69), knowledge (n = 32), attitudes (n = 26), confidence in counselling (n = 30) and acceptability (n = 16).ConclusionsApps, gaming, role play/simulations could represent innovative interventions. This review highlighted the need of delving into communication strategies and using more robust evaluations, longer follow-up and standardized measurements.
| S-EPMC10567238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.
| S-EPMC8236639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Ghana ranked 31st worldwide and 3rd in Africa in the number of confirmed cases worldwide. We aimed to assess the intention to receive the monkeypox (MPOX) vaccine and its associated psychological antecedents among the Ghanaian population. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Ghana from November to December 2022. Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants via social media platforms, such as WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Telegram, and Facebook. The validated 5C scale was used to assess five psychological factors that influence vaccination behavior and intent: confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. Results: The study drew 605 participants; their mean age was 30.0 ± 6.8; 68.1% were single; 60.8 % were males, and 51.9% were living in Greater Accra (The capital and largest city of Ghana). About 53.9% of the studied Ghanaian population did not intend to receive the MPOX vaccination. Vaccine acceptance among non-healthcare workers (non-HCWs) was significantly lower than among HCWs (41.7 vs. 55.3, p < 0.001). The determinants of vaccine acceptance were male gender (AOR = 1.48, 95% CI, 1.00-2.18, p = 0.049), urban residence (AOR = 0.63, 95% CI, 0.41-0.96, p = 0.033), refusal of coronavirus 2019 vaccine (AOR = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16-0.52, p < 0.001), confidence in vaccination ((AOR = 2.45, 95% CI, 1.93-3.15, and p < 0.001), and collective responsibility (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.02-1.75, p = 0.034)). Conclusions: The participants in this study did not show high levels of intention to accept the MPOX vaccination. Consequently, tailoring the efforts aiming to promote MPOX vaccination is needed especially among non-HCWs through increasing their confidence in vaccine effectiveness and safety and promoting the importance of self-vaccination to protect others.
| S-EPMC9959510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination, albeit a necessity in the prevention of infectious diseases, requires appropriate strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy at an individual and community level. However, there remains a glaring scarcity of available literature in that regard. Therefore, this review aims to scrutinize globally tested interventions to increase the vaccination uptake by addressing vaccine hesitancy at various stages of these interventions across the globe and help policy makers in implementing appropriate strategies to address the issue.MethodsA systematic review of descriptive and analytic studies was conducted using specific key word searches to identify literature containing information about interventions directed at vaccine hesitancy. The search was done using PubMed, Global Health, and Science Direct databases. Data extraction was based on study characteristics such as author details; study design; and type, duration, and outcome of an intervention.ResultsA total of 105 studies were identified of which 33 studies were included in the final review. Community-based interventions, monetary incentives, and technology-based health literacy demonstrated significant improvement in the utilization of immunization services. On the other hand, media-based intervention studies did not bring about a desired change in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionThis study indicates that the strategies should be based on the need and reasons for vaccine hesitancy for the targeted population. A multidimensional approach involving community members, families, and individuals is required to address this challenging issue.
| S-EPMC9044888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVaccination is a key strategy to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, among vulnerable groups such as cancer patients. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is limiting vaccination uptake in this population as in others. This study aimed to synthesise the emerging literature on vaccine hesitancy in this population and in Oncology health professionals, reasons for and factors associated with hesitancy, and interventions that address hesitancy.MethodsA rapid review was undertaken PubMed, Ovid and Google across all years up to October 2021 for articles in English, from any country or region, addressing the above issues. Individual case studies, opinion pieces, commentary articles and conference abstracts were excluded. Article screening, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted by two authors. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken.ResultsEighteen eligible articles were identified. Reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates varied from 76.7 % to 3.9 %, with a mean of 38.4 %. A large international study (n > 20,000) reported a more conservative hesitancy rate of 19 %. Six broad, common reasons for hesitancy were identified. Oncologist advice was valued by patients.DiscussionVaccine hesitancy remains a significant concern in the oncology context. Oncologists are key to addressing hesitancy and providing tailored advice to cancer patients.Practice implicationsWhere possible, patients appreciate personalised, tailored information about vaccination which addresses its interaction with cancer and its treatment. Education programmes for oncologists to support effective communication in this context are needed. Webinars and peer-to-peer counselling may be useful but remain to be proven.
| S-EPMC9951090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination against the novel coronavirus is one of the most effective strategies for combating the global Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy has emerged as a major obstacle in several regions of the world, including Africa. The objective of this rapid review was to summarize the literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa.MethodsWe searched Scopus, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, and OVID Medline for studies published from January 1, 2020, to March 8, 2022, examining acceptance or hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in Africa. Study characteristics and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were extracted from the included articles.ResultsA total of 71 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Majority (n = 25, 35%) of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia. Studies conducted in Botswana, Cameroun, Cote D'Ivoire, DR Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe were also included in the review. The vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 6.9 to 97.9%. The major reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns with vaccine safety and side effects, lack of trust for pharmaceutical industries and misinformation or conflicting information from the media. Factors associated with positive attitudes towards the vaccine included being male, having a higher level of education, and fear of contracting the virus.ConclusionsOur review demonstrated the contextualized and multifaceted reasons inhibiting or encouraging vaccine uptake in African countries. This evidence is key to operationalizing interventions based on facts as opposed to assumptions. Our paper provided important considerations for addressing the challenge of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and blunting the impact of the pandemic in Africa.
| S-EPMC9294808 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8761552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:International sustainable development goals for the elimination of viral hepatitis as a public health problem by 2030 highlight the pressing need to optimize strategies for prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Selected or transmitted resistance associated mutations (RAMs) and vaccine escape mutations (VEMs) in hepatitis B virus (HBV) may reduce the success of existing treatment and prevention strategies. These issues are particularly pertinent for many settings in Africa where there is high HBV prevalence and co-endemic HIV infection, but lack of robust epidemiological data and limited education, diagnostics and clinical care. The prevalence, distribution and impact of RAMs and VEMs in these populations are neglected in the current literature. We therefore set out to assimilate data for sub-Saharan Africa through a systematic literature review and analysis of published sequence data, and present these in an on-line database (https://livedataoxford.shinyapps.io/1510659619-3Xkoe2NKkKJ7Drg/). The majority of the data were from HIV/HBV coinfected cohorts. The commonest RAM was rtM204I/V, either alone or in combination with associated mutations, and identified in both reportedly treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced adults. We also identified the suite of mutations rtM204V/I + rtL180M + rtV173L, that has been associated with vaccine escape, in over 1/3 of cohorts. Although tenofovir has a high genetic barrier to resistance, it is of concern that emerging data suggest polymorphisms that may be associated with resistance, although the precise clinical impact of these is unknown. Overall, there is an urgent need for improved diagnostic screening, enhanced laboratory assessment of HBV before and during therapy, and sustained roll out of tenofovir in preference to lamivudine alone. Further data are needed in order to inform population and individual approaches to HBV diagnosis, monitoring and therapy in these highly vulnerable settings.
| S-EPMC6095632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDrawing from the Health Belief Model, we explored how disadvantaged groups in the U.S., including Black, Hispanic, less educated and wealthy individuals, experienced perceived barriers and cues to action in the context of the COVID-19 vaccination.DesignA cross-sectional survey administered in March 2021.SettingUSA.SubjectsA national sample of U.S. residents (n = 795) recruited from Prolific.MeasuresPerceived barriers (clinical, access, trust, religion/spiritual), cues to action (authorities, social circles), attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination.AnalysisFactor analysis and Structural Equation Model (SEM) were performed in STATA 16.ResultsBlack and less educated individuals experienced higher clinical barriers (CI [.012, .33]; CI [.027, .10]), trust barriers (CI [.49, .92]; CI [.057, .16]), and religious/spiritual barriers (CI [.28, .66]; CI [.026, .11]). Hispanics experienced lower levels of clinical barriers (CI [-.42, .0001]). Clinical, trust, and religious/spiritual barriers were negatively related to attitudes toward vaccination (CI [-.45, -.15]; CI [-.79, -.51]; CI [-.43, -.13]). Black and less educated individuals experienced fewer cues to action by authority (CI [-.47, -.083]; CI [-.093, -.002]) and social ties (CI [-.75, -.33]; CI [-.18, -.080]). Lower-income individuals experienced fewer cues to action by social ties (CI [-.097, -.032]). Cues from social ties were positively associated with vaccination attitudes (CI [.065, .26]).ConclusionCommunication should be personalized to address perceived barriers disadvantaged groups differentially experience and use sources who exert influences on these groups.
| S-EPMC9618917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Worldwide more than ten million people are detained at any given time. Between 5 and 60% of people experiencing incarceration report receipt of a tattoo in prison - mostly clandestine, which is associated with risks of blood-borne infections (BBIs). Although safer tattooing techniques are effective in preventing BBI transmission and available to the general population, there is limited knowledge about the impact of safer tattooing strategies in prisons in terms of health outcomes, changes in knowledge and behaviors, and best practice models for implementation. The objective of this research was to identify and review safer tattooing interventions.We conducted a systematic review of the literature. Studies of all design types were included if they were published until 27 June 2018, the population was incarcerated adults, they reported quantitative outcomes, and were published in English, French, or Spanish.Of 55 papers retrieved from the initial search, no peer-reviewed article was identified. One paper from the grey literature described a multi-site pilot project in Canada. Its evaluation suggested that the project was effective in enhancing knowledge of incarcerated people and prison staff on standard precautions, had the potential to reduce harm, provided vocational opportunities, and was feasible although enhancements were needed to improve implementation issues and efficiency.Although access to preventive services, including to safer tattooing interventions, is a human right and recommended by United Nations agencies as part of a comprehensive package of harm reduction interventions in prisons, this review identified only a few promising strategies for safer tattooing interventions in carceral settings. We call upon governments, criminal justice authorities, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions to implement safer tattooing projects that adhere to the following guiding principles: i) integration of methodologically-rigorous implementation research; ii) involvement of key stakeholders (incarcerated people, prison authorities, research partners) in the project design, implementation, and research; iii) integration into a comprehensive package of BBI prevention, treatment, and care, using a stepwise approach that considers local resources and acceptability; and iv) publication and dissemination of findings, and scaling up efforts.CRD42017072502 .
| S-EPMC6094923 | biostudies-literature