COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women and mothers of young children: results of a survey in 16 countries.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Skjefte M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920402 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We investigated the impact of a single unstructured educational lecture about vaccinations on the vaccine confidence in volunteer participants. We conducted a survey-based study during a series of open meetings related to pregnancy and parenting. Before and after the pediatrician's lecture related to vaccinations, listeners completed the visual analogue scales (VAS, 0-15 cm), evaluating (1) self-declared knowledge on vaccinations and (2) how they perceive the safety and efficacy of this preventive method. In total, 484 women aged 30 ± 4 years participated in the lecture (pregnant = 68%; ≥1 children = 56%). Participants declared to have more comprehensive knowledge on preventive vaccinations and perceived vaccines to be safer and more useful (the role for the immunity) after vs. before the lecture (median VAS: 10.4 vs. 7.2, 10.8 vs. 8.7, and 11.0 vs. 10.4 cm, all p < 0.001). Importantly, the prevalence of vaccine-related adverse events was also assessed as being higher after the lecture (median VAS: 9.9 vs. 8.0 cm, p < 0.001). The increase in self-declared knowledge on vaccinations and perceived need for vaccinations (delta VAS-VAS after minus before the lecture, expressed as % of baseline) was lower among participants who rated the lecture less vs. more useful. Importantly, both participants who liked vs. did not like the lecture comparably rated vaccines safer after vs. before the lecture (delta VAS (median, interquartile range): 16% (0-39%) vs. 18% (2-42%), p = 0.39). An educational lecture on vaccinations positively impacts vaccine confidence in young adult women. Irrespective of the subjective rating of the lecture, all listeners perceived vaccinations to be safer after vs. before the speech.
| S-EPMC8003617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination during pregnancy is a safe and effective intervention to protect women from potentially severe consequences of influenza and reduce risk of influenza and pertussis in their infants. However, coverage remains variable. In this mini-review we update findings from a 2015 systematic review to describe results from recent studies in high income countries on the uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccination in pregnancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy and barriers to increasing uptake, from maternal and healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives. Studies reported highly variable uptake (from 0% to 78%). A main facilitator for uptake among pregnant women was receiving a recommendation from their HCP. However, studies showed that HCP awareness of guidelines did not consistently translate into them recommending vaccines to pregnant women. Safety concerns are a well-established barrier to uptake/coverage of maternal immunization; 7%-52% of unvaccinated women gave safety concerns as a reason but these were also present in vaccinated women. Knowledge/awareness gaps among pregnant women and lack of confidence among HCPs to discuss vaccination were both important barriers. Several studies indicated that midwives were more likely to express safety concerns than other HCPs, and less likely to recommend vaccination to pregnant women. Women who perceived the risk of infection to be low were less likely to accept vaccination in several studies, along with women with prior vaccine refusal. Findings highlight the importance of further research to explore context-specific barriers to vaccination in pregnancy, which may include lack of vaccine confidence among pregnant woman and HCPs, and policy and structural factors.
| S-EPMC8107947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Maternal vaccination coverage remains suboptimal globally and is lowest in low- and middle-income countries. Attitudes toward maternal vaccines have been characterized in middle-high income settings, however data from African countries are limited. We assessed drivers and barriers of vaccine acceptance among pregnant women in Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among pregnant women aged 15-49 y. We enrolled a convenience sample of women presenting for antenatal care at seven health-care facilities in four diverse counties (Nairobi, Mombasa, Marsabit, Siaya) of Kenya and from the community in two counties (Nairobi, Siaya). We described frequencies of socio-demographic characteristics of participants and their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding maternal vaccination. We enrolled 604 pregnant women with a median age of 26.5 y, of whom 48.2% had primary education or less. More than 95% agreed that maternal vaccines are "important for my health" and that getting vaccinated is "a good way to protect myself from disease". The most commonly cited reason in favor of maternal vaccination was disease prevention (53.2%). Fear of side effects to mother/baby (15.1%) was the most frequently reported potential barrier. Influenza vaccine is not in routine use in Kenya; however, 77.8% reported willingness to accept influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Maternal vaccination is well accepted among Kenyan pregnant women. We identified the provision of adequate vaccine information and addressing safety concerns as opportunities to improve maternal vaccine uptake. The expressed willingness to receive a vaccine not currently in routine use bodes well for implementation of new maternal vaccines in Kenya.
| S-EPMC7644175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough mass vaccination against COVID-19 may prove to be the most efficacious end to this deadly pandemic, there remain concern and indecision among the public toward vaccination. Because pregnant and reproductive-aged women account for a large proportion of the population with particular concerns regarding vaccination against COVID-19, this survey aimed at investigating their current attitudes and beliefs within our own institution.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand vaccine acceptability among pregnant, nonpregnant, and breastfeeding respondents and elucidate factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.Study designWe administered an anonymous online survey to all women (including patients, providers, and staff) at our institution assessing rates of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents were contacted in 1 of 3 ways: by email, advertisement flyers, and distribution of quick response codes at virtual town halls regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on their responses, respondents were divided into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) nonpregnant respondents, (2) pregnant respondents, and (3) breastfeeding respondents. The primary outcome was acceptance of vaccination. Prevalence ratios were calculated to ascertain the independent effects of multiple patient-level factors on vaccine acceptability.ResultsThe survey was administered from January 7, 2021, to January 29, 2021, with 1012 respondents of whom 466 (46.9%) identified as non-Hispanic White, 108 (10.9%) as non-Hispanic Black, 286 (28.8%) as Hispanic, and 82 (8.2%) as non-Hispanic Asian. The median age was 36 years (interquartile range, 25-47 years). Of all the respondents, 656 respondents (64.8%) were nonpregnant, 216 (21.3%) were pregnant, and 122 (12.1%) were breastfeeding. There was no difference in chronic comorbidities when evaluated as a composite variable (Table 1). A total of 390 respondents (39.2%) reported working in healthcare. Nonpregnant respondents were most likely to accept vaccination (457 respondents, 76.2%; P<.001) with breastfeeding respondents the second most likely (55.2%). Pregnant respondents had the lowest rate of vaccine acceptance (44.3%; P<.001). Prevalence ratios revealed all non-White races except for non-Hispanic Asian respondents, and Spanish-speaking respondents were less likely to accept vaccination (Table 3). Working in healthcare was not found to be associated with vaccine acceptance among our cohort.ConclusionIn this survey study of only women at a single institution, pregnant respondents of non-White or non-Asian races were more likely to decline vaccination than nonpregnant and breastfeeding respondents. Working in healthcare was not associated with vaccine acceptance.
| S-EPMC8146275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRecessive genetic diseases impose physical and psychological impacts to both newborns and parents who may not be aware of being carriers. Expanded carrier screening (ECS) allows screening for multiple genetic conditions at the same time. Whether or not such non-targeted panethnic approach of genetic carrier screening should replace the conventional targeted approach remains controversial. There is limited data on view and acceptance of ECS in general population, as well as the optimal timing of offering ECS to women. This study assesses views and acceptance of ECS in both pregnant women and non-pregnant women seeking fertility counseling or checkup and their reasons for accepting or declining ECS.Materials and methodsThis is a questionnaire survey with ECS information in the form of pamphlets distributed from December 2016 to end of 2018. Women were recruited from the antenatal clinics and the assisted reproductive unit at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Mary Hospital and the prepregnancy counseling clinic at the Family Planning Association of Hong Kong.ResultsA total of 923 women were recruited: 623 pregnant women and 300 non-pregnant women. There were significantly more non-pregnant women accepting ECS compared to pregnant women (70.7% vs. 61.2%). Eight hundred and sixty-eight (94%) women perceived ECS as at least as effective as or superior to traditional targeted screening. Significantly more pregnant women have heard about ECS compared with non-pregnant women (42.4% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.0197). Majority of women showed lack of understanding about ECS despite reading pamphlets that were given to them prior to filling in the questionnaires. Cost of ECS was a major reason for declining ECS, 28% (n = 256). Significantly more pregnant women worried about anxiety caused by ECS compared with the non-pregnant group (21.1% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.0006).ConclusionOur study demonstrates that expanded carrier screening was perceived as a better screening by most women. Prepregnancy ECS maybe a better approach than ECS during pregnancy, as it allows more reproductive options and may cause less anxiety. Nevertheless, implementation of universal panethnic ECS will need more patient education, ways to reduce anxiety, and consensus on optimal timing in offering ECS.
| S-EPMC7701308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Infantile pertussis is a major concern and causes a significant health burden worldwide. Maternal adult tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination is very effective way of preventing infantile pertussis. However, Tdap has not been approved by the Japanese government or been included in Japan's national immunization program (NIP). We carried out a questionnaire survey to investigate whether Japanese women would accept the Tdap vaccination if they were provided with appropriate information.Methods: The questionnaire survey was administered to pregnant women who visited the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department and mothers who visited the Pediatrics Department of Nara Medical University, Kashihara City, Japan, between October 2018 and May 2019. The questionnaire included information about pertussis infection and maternal vaccination, followed by seven questions.Results: A total of 943 participants answered the questionnaire (481 pregnant women and 462 mothers). Before reading the information, just 4.6% of participants knew that infantile pertussis can be prevented by maternal vaccination. After reading the information, 93.0% and 92.6% of participants thought that the maternal Tdap vaccine should be approved by the Japanese government and be included in the NIP, respectively. Although only 67.6% of participants wished to have the maternal Tdap vaccine without government financial support after reading the information, 92.5% said they would have the vaccine with government support (P < .001).Conclusion: Most Japanese mothers and pregnant women would like the maternal Tdap vaccine to be approved by the government and included in the NIP, once they have been provided with appropriate information.
| S-EPMC7062446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pregnant women and newborns are at high risk for infectious diseases. Altered immunity status during pregnancy and challenges fully vaccinating newborns contribute to this medical reality. Maternal immunization is a strategy to protect pregnant women and their newborns. This study aimed to find out how patient-provider relationships affect maternal vaccine uptake, particularly in the context of a lower middle- income country where limited research in this area exists. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured, in-depth narrative interviews of both providers and pregnant women from four sites in Kenya: Siaya, Nairobi, Mombasa, and Marsabit. Interviews were conducted in either English or one of the local regional languages. RESULTS:We found that patient trust in health care providers (HCPs) is integral to vaccine acceptance among pregnant women in Kenya. The HCP-patient relationship is a fiduciary one, whereby the patients' trusts is primarily rooted in the provider's social position as a person who is highly educated in matters of health. Furthermore, patient health education and provider attitudes are crucial for reinstating and fostering that trust, especially in cases where trust was impeded by rumors, community myths and misperceptions, and religious and cultural factors. CONCLUSION:Patient trust in providers is a strong facilitator contributing to vaccine acceptance among pregnant women in Kenya. To maintain and increase immunization trust, providers have a critical role in cultivating a positive environment that allows for favorable interactions and patient health education. This includes educating providers on maternal immunizations and enhancing knowledge of effective risk communication tactics in clinical encounters.
| S-EPMC6813986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe availability of various types of COVID-19 vaccines and diverse characteristics of the vaccines present a dilemma in vaccination choices, which may result in individuals refusing a particular COVID-19 vaccine offered, hence presenting a threat to immunisation coverage and reaching herd immunity. The study aimed to assess global COVID-19 vaccination intention, vaccine characteristics influencing vaccination acceptance and desirable vaccine characteristics influencing the choice of vaccines.MethodsAn anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted between 4 January and 5 March 2021 in 17 countries worldwide. Proportions and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and vaccine characteristics influencing vaccination acceptance were generated and compared across countries and regions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.ResultsOf the 19,714 responses received, 90.4% (95% CI 81.8-95.3) reported likely or extremely likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A high proportion of likely or extremely likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was reported in Australia (96.4%), China (95.3%) and Norway (95.3%), while a high proportion reported being unlikely or extremely unlikely to receive the vaccine in Japan (34.6%), the U.S. (29.4%) and Iran (27.9%). Males, those with a lower educational level and those of older age expressed a higher level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Less than two-thirds (59.7%; 95% CI 58.4-61.0) reported only being willing to accept a vaccine with an effectiveness of more than 90%, and 74.5% (95% CI 73.4-75.5) said they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine with minor adverse reactions. A total of 21.0% (95% CI 20.0-22.0) reported not accepting an mRNA vaccine and 51.8% (95% CI 50.3-53.1) reported that they would only accept a COVID-19 vaccine from a specific country-of-origin. Countries from the Southeast Asia region reported the highest proportion of not accepting mRNA technology. The highest proportion from Europe and the Americas would only accept a vaccine produced by certain countries. The foremost important vaccine characteristic influencing vaccine choice is adverse reactions (40.6%; 95% CI 39.3-41.9) of a vaccine and effectiveness threshold (35.1%; 95% CI 33.9-36.4).ConclusionsThe inter-regional and individual country disparities in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy highlight the importance of designing an efficient plan for the delivery of interventions dynamically tailored to the local population.
| S-EPMC8496428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In March 2021, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic still poses a threat to the global population, and is a public health challenge that needs to be overcome. Now more than ever, action is needed to tackle vaccine hesitancy, especially in light of the availability of effective and safe vaccines. A cross-sectional online survey was carried out on a representative random sample of 1011 citizens from the Emilia-Romagna region, in Italy, in January 2021. The questionnaire collected information on socio-demographics, comorbidities, past vaccination refusal, COVID-19-related experiences, risk perception of infection, and likelihood to accept COVID-19 vaccination. Multiple logistic regression analyses and classification tree analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy and to distinguish groups with different levels of hesitancy. Overall, 31.1% of the sample reported hesitancy. Past vaccination refusal was the key discriminating variable followed by perceived risk of infection. Other significant predictors of hesitancy were: ages between 35 and 54 years, female gender, low educational level, low income, and absence of comorbidities. The most common concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine involved safety (54%) and efficacy (27%). Studying the main determinants of vaccine hesitancy can help with targeting vaccination strategies, in order to gain widespread acceptance-a key path to ensure a rapid way out of the current pandemic emergency.
| S-EPMC8070202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Anal cancer remains rare (incidence of about 1·5 per 100,000 women yearly), but rates are increasing in many countries. Human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 infections cause most cases of anal cancer. We assessed efficacy of an AS04-adjuvanted HPV 16 and HPV 18 vaccine against anal infection with HPV 16, HPV 18, or both (HPV 16/18). METHODS:Women from Costa Rica were registered between June 28, 2004, and Dec 21, 2005, in a randomised double-blind controlled trial that was designed to assess vaccine efficacy against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections and associated precancerous lesions. Eligible women were residents of Guanacaste and selected areas of Puntarenas, Costa Rica, age 18-25 years, in good general health, willing to provide informed consent, and were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV vaccine (Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium) or a control hepatitis A vaccine (modified preparation of Havrix, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium). Vaccines were administered in three 0·5 mL doses at enrolment, 1 month, and 6 months. Women, selected at the final blinded study visit 4 years after vaccination, provided anal specimens for assessment of vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16/18 infection. Prevalence of anal HPV 16/18 infections, reported as vaccine efficacy, was the primary endpoint of the study described here. Vaccine efficacy against cervical HPV 16/18 infection in the same women at the 4-year visit was used as a comparator. Analyses were done in a restricted cohort of women who were negative for both cervical HPV 16 and HPV 18 DNA and who were HPV 16 and HPV 18 seronegative before enrolment (HPV naive), and also in the full cohort of women who provided an anal specimen. Investigators were masked to group assignment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128661. FINDINGS:All women who attended the final blinded study visit and consented to anal specimen collection were included in the analysis (4210 of 6352 eligible women). In the full cohort, vaccine efficacy against prevalent HPV 16/18 infection measured one-time, 4 years post vaccination was lower at the anus (62·0%, 95% CI 47·1-73·1) compared with the cervix (76·4%, 67·0-83·5; p for interaction by anatomical site 0·031). In the restricted cohort, vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16/18 infection was 83·6% (66·7-92·8), which was similar to vaccine efficacy against cervical HPV 16/18 infection (87·9%, 77·4-94·0). Safety issues were not addressed in the current analysis. Additional safety data will be published later in a separate article. INTERPRETATION:The AS04-adjuvanted vaccine affords strong protection against anal HPV infection, particularly among women more likely to be HPV naive at enrolment. FUNDING:National Cancer Institute with contributions from the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health. Vaccine was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
| S-EPMC3172992 | biostudies-literature