Dataset Information

United States COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences (CVP): 2020 Hindsight.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shortly after the 2020 US election, initial evidence on first-generation COVID-19 vaccines showed 70-95% efficacy and minimal risks. Yet, many US adults expressed reluctance.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare persons willing and unwilling to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to estimate the effects of vaccination attributes on uptake: proof of vaccination, vaccination setting, effectiveness, duration of immunity, and risk of severe side effects.

Method

Between 9 and 11 November 2020, 1153 US adults completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on Phase 2 of the CDC Vaccination Program (August 2021). Each of its eight choice tasks had three vaccination alternatives and "no vaccination for 6 months." An opt-out inflated logit model was estimated to test for respondent differences and attribute effects.

Results

Respondent demographics were unrelated to one's willingness to be vaccinated (p value 0.533), but those with less education were more likely to be unwilling (p < 0.001). Among those willing, uptake ranged from 61.70 to 97.75%, depending on the vaccination attributes. Effectiveness and safety had the largest effects. Offering proof of vaccination and a choice of setting increased uptake as much as increasing immunity from 3 to 6 months.

Conclusions

To maximize uptake, the CDC Program should standardize proof of vaccination and offer a choice of setting, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. If the first-generation vaccines are efficacious, widely available, and free, overall predicted uptake is 68.81% by the end of Phase 2 (August 2021), which is well below the 75-90% needed for herd immunity. Further health preference research is necessary to uncover and address unwillingness and reluctance to vaccinate against COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Craig BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn 2021, HHS Office of Minority Health and CDC developed a composite measure of social vulnerability called the Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (MHSVI) to assess the needs of communities most vulnerable to COVID-19. The MHSVI extends the CDC Social Vulnerability Index with two new themes on healthcare access and medical vulnerability. This analysis examines COVID-19 vaccination coverage by social vulnerability using the MHSVI.MethodsCounty-level COVID-19 vaccine administration data among persons aged ≥18 years reported to CDC from 12/14/20 to 01/31/22 were analyzed. U.S. counties from 50 states and DC were categorized into tertiles of vulnerability (low, moderate, and high) for the composite MHSVI measure and each of the 34 indicators. Vaccination coverage (≥1 dose, primary series completion, and receipt of a booster dose) was calculated by tertiles for the composite MHSVI measure and each indicator.ResultsCounties with lower per capita income, higher proportion of individuals with no high school diploma, living below poverty, ≥65 years of age, with a disability, and in mobile homes had lower vaccination uptake. However, counties with larger proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals speaking English less than "very well" had higher coverage. Counties with fewer primary care physicians and greater medical vulnerabilities had lower ≥ 1 dose vaccination coverage. Furthermore, counties of high vulnerability had lower primary series completion and receipt of a booster dose. There were no clear patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by tertiles for the composite measure.ConclusionResults from the new components in the MHSVI identify needs to prioritize persons in counties with greater medical vulnerabilities and limited access to health care, who are at greater risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings suggest that using a composite measure to characterize social vulnerability might mask disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake that would have otherwise been observed using specific indicators.

Project description:In April 2020, during the peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Europe, a cluster of children with hyperinflammatory shock with features similar to Kawasaki disease and toxic shock syndrome was reported in England* (1). The patients' signs and symptoms were temporally associated with COVID-19 but presumed to have developed 2-4 weeks after acute COVID-19; all children had serologic evidence of infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). The clinical signs and symptoms present in this first cluster included fever, rash, conjunctivitis, peripheral edema, gastrointestinal symptoms, shock, and elevated markers of inflammation and cardiac damage (1). On May 14, 2020, CDC published an online Health Advisory that summarized the manifestations of reported multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), outlined a case definition,† and asked clinicians to report suspected U.S. cases to local and state health departments. As of July 29, a total of 570 U.S. MIS-C patients who met the case definition had been reported to CDC. A total of 203 (35.6%) of the patients had a clinical course consistent with previously published MIS-C reports, characterized predominantly by shock, cardiac dysfunction, abdominal pain, and markedly elevated inflammatory markers, and almost all had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The remaining 367 (64.4%) of MIS-C patients had manifestations that appeared to overlap with acute COVID-19 (2-4), had a less severe clinical course, or had features of Kawasaki disease.§ Median duration of hospitalization was 6 days; 364 patients (63.9%) required care in an intensive care unit (ICU), and 10 patients (1.8%) died. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to expand in many jurisdictions, clinicians should be aware of the signs and symptoms of MIS-C and report suspected cases to their state or local health departments; analysis of reported cases can enhance understanding of MIS-C and improve characterization of the illness for early detection and treatment.

Project description:BackgroundThe global impact of COVID-19 and the country-specific responses to the pandemic provide an unparalleled opportunity to learn about different patterns of the outbreak and interventions. We model the global pattern of reported COVID-19 cases during the primary response period, with the aim of learning from the past to prepare for the future.MethodsUsing Bayesian methods, we analyse the response to the COVID-19 outbreak for 158 countries for the period 22 January to 9 June 2020. This encompasses the period in which many countries imposed a variety of response measures and initial relaxation strategies. Instead of modelling specific intervention types and timings for each country explicitly, we adopt a stochastic epidemiological model including a feedback mechanism on virus transmission to capture complex nonlinear dynamics arising from continuous changes in community behaviour in response to rising case numbers. We analyse the overall effect of interventions and community responses across diverse regions. This approach mitigates explicit consideration of issues such as period of infectivity and public adherence to government restrictions.ResultsCountries with the largest cumulative case tallies are characterised by a delayed response, whereas countries that avoid substantial community transmission during the period of study responded quickly. Countries that recovered rapidly also have a higher case identification rate and small numbers of undocumented community transmission at the early stages of the outbreak. We also demonstrate that uncertainty in numbers of undocumented infections dramatically impacts the risk of multiple waves. Our approach is also effective at pre-empting potential flare-ups.ConclusionsWe demonstrate the utility of modelling to interpret community behaviour in the early epidemic stages. Two lessons learnt that are important for the future are: i) countries that imposed strict containment measures early in the epidemic fared better with respect to numbers of reported cases; and ii) broader testing is required early in the epidemic to understand the magnitude of undocumented infections and recover rapidly. We conclude that clear patterns of containment are essential prior to relaxation of restrictions and show that modelling can provide insights to this end.

Project description:ImportanceRecommendations for additional doses of COVID vaccine are restricted to people with HIV who have advanced disease or unsuppressed HIV viral load. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk post-vaccination among PWH is essential for informing vaccination guidelines.ObjectiveEstimate the risk of breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated people with (PWH) and without (PWoH) HIV in the US.Design setting and participantsThe Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET)-II cohort collaboration consists of 4 longitudinal cohorts from integrated health systems and academic health centers. Each cohort identified individuals â‰¥18 years old, in-care, and fully vaccinated for COVID-19 through 30 June 2021. PWH were matched to PWoH on date fully vaccinated, age group, race/ethnicity, and sex at birth. Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years and cumulative incidence of breakthrough infections with 95% confidence intervals ([,]) were estimated by HIV status. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of breakthrough infections by HIV status adjusting for demographic factors, prior COVID-19 illness, vaccine type (BNT162b2, [Pfizer], mRNA-1273 [Moderna], Jansen Ad26.COV2.S [J&J]), calendar time, and cohort. Risk factors for breakthroughs among PWH, were also investigated.ExposureHIV infection.OutcomeCOVID-19 breakthrough infections, defined as laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 diagnosis after an individual was fully vaccinated.ResultsAmong 109,599 individuals (31,840 PWH and 77,759 PWoH), the rate of breakthrough infections was higher in PWH versus PWoH: 44 [41, 48] vs. 31 [29, 33] per 1,000 person-years. Cumulative incidence at 210 days after date fully vaccinated was low, albeit higher in PWH versus PWoH overall (2.8% versus 2.1%, log-rank p<0.001, risk difference=0.7% [0.4%, 1.0%]) and within each vaccine type. Breakthrough infection risk was 41% higher in PWH versus PWoH (aHR=1.41 [1.28, 1.56]). Among PWH, younger age (18-24 versus 45-54), history of COVID-19 prior to fully vaccinated date, and J&J vaccination (versus Pfizer) were associated with increased risk of breakthroughs. There was no association of breakthrough with HIV viral load suppression or CD4 count among PWH.Conclusions and relevanceCOVID-19 vaccination is effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating through 30 Sept 2021. PWH have an increased risk of breakthrough infections compared to PWoH. Recommendations for additional vaccine doses should be expanded to all PWH.

Project description:From January 21 through February 23, 2020, public health agencies detected 14 U.S. cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), all related to travel from China (1,2). The first nontravel-related U.S. case was confirmed on February 26 in a California resident who had become ill on February 13 (3). Two days later, on February 28, a second nontravel-related case was confirmed in the state of Washington (4,5). Examination of four lines of evidence provides insight into the timing of introduction and early transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, into the United States before the detection of these two cases. First, syndromic surveillance based on emergency department records from counties affected early by the pandemic did not show an increase in visits for COVID-19-like illness before February 28. Second, retrospective SARS-CoV-2 testing of approximately 11,000 respiratory specimens from several U.S. locations beginning January 1 identified no positive results before February 20. Third, analysis of viral RNA sequences from early cases suggested that a single lineage of virus imported directly or indirectly from China began circulating in the United States between January 18 and February 9, followed by several SARS-CoV-2 importations from Europe. Finally, the occurrence of three cases, one in a California resident who died on February 6, a second in another resident of the same county who died February 17, and a third in an unidentified passenger or crew member aboard a Pacific cruise ship that left San Francisco on February 11, confirms cryptic circulation of the virus by early February. These data indicate that sustained, community transmission had begun before detection of the first two nontravel-related U.S. cases, likely resulting from the importation of a single lineage of virus from China in late January or early February, followed by several importations from Europe. The widespread emergence of COVID-19 throughout the United States after February highlights the importance of robust public health systems to respond rapidly to emerging infectious threats.