Increased COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy and Health Awareness amid COVID-19 Vaccinations Programs in Israel.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shacham M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8038659 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Novel mRNA vaccines have been developed and were first distributed to high-risk individuals (including smokers) in the United States starting in December 2020 to combat the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Over one-half of the U.S. adult population has received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but many others have reported hesitation about becoming vaccinated. We examined COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy from a convenience sample of Pennsylvanian adult smokers in April 2021, approximately 3 months after tobacco users were eligible to receive vaccination in the state. Participants (n = 231) were 23.4% male, 90.5% white, and had a mean age of 48.1 (SD = 11.9) years. All participants were current tobacco users, with the majority reporting current cigarette smoking (90.9%) with an average of 16 (SD = 8.1) cigarettes smoked per day. Nearly 60% (n = 137) reported receiving at least 1 dose of the vaccine and of those who did not (n = 94), 84% (n = 79) said they were somewhat or very unlikely to get a vaccine. Those who were unvaccinated were more likely to not consume news about COVID-19 (chi-square P-value < .01) and less likely to believe government news sources as reliable information for COVID-19 (chi-square P-value < .01). Qualitative responses among those who were vaccine hesitant expressed concerns about the lack of research on the vaccine, distrust of the safety of the vaccine, and fears about side effects. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among tobacco users can help develop targeted communication strategies and directly address concerns to promote vaccination among this population who may be at an increased risk of severe complications from COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8721404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.
| S-EPMC8310090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.
| S-EPMC8572733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The spread of Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has led to many healthcare systems being overwhelmed by the rapid emergence of new cases. Here, we study the ramifications of hospital load due to COVID-19 morbidity on in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 by analyzing records of all 22,636 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Israel from mid-July 2020 to mid-January 2021. We show that even under moderately heavy patient load (>500 countrywide hospitalized severely-ill patients; the Israeli Ministry of Health defined 800 severely-ill patients as the maximum capacity allowing adequate treatment), in-hospital mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 significantly increased compared to periods of lower patient load (250-500 severely-ill patients): 14-day mortality rates were 22.1% (Standard Error 3.1%) higher (mid-September to mid-October) and 27.2% (Standard Error 3.3%) higher (mid-December to mid-January). We further show this higher mortality rate cannot be attributed to changes in the patient population during periods of heavier load.
| S-EPMC7997985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread vaccination in pursuit of herd immunity has been recognized as the most promising approach to ending the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). The vaccination of children and adolescents has been extensively debated and the first COVID-19 vaccine is now approved in European countries for children aged > 12 years of age. Our study investigates vaccination hesitancy in a cohort of German secondary school students. We assessed 903 students between age 9 and 20 in the period between 17 May 2021 and 30 June 2021. 68.3% (n = 617) reported intention to undergo COVID-19 vaccination, while 7% (n = 62) did not want to receive the vaccine and 15% (n = 135) were not yet certain. Age and parental level of education influenced COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Children under the age of 16 as well as students whose parents had lower education levels showed significantly higher vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion: Identifying subsets with higher vaccination hesitancy is important for targeting public information campaigns in support of immunization. What is Known: • The willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination among adults in Europe is about 70%, but data for children and adolescents is lacking. • The lack of immunization in younger cohorts represents a significant barrier to achieving herd immunity, and also leaves children and adolescents vulnerable to acute and long-term morbidity from natural COVID-19 infections. What is New: • Intention-to-vaccinate among children and adolescents is high (~ 70%); conversely, vaccination hesitancy is low. • Age and parental level of education influenced COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among children and adolescents.
| S-EPMC8691963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among Iraqi healthcare workers-HCWs.Study designCross-sectional survey.MethodsIn February 2021, an anonymous questionnaire on the willingness of receiving Covid-19 vaccination was submitted to a sample of HWCs in the Dohuk Governorate, Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Overall, 1704 questionnaires were analysed by means of univariate and multivariate statistics.ResultsThe sample included 978 males and 726 females (Mean age: 36.9 ± 10.1), working in Primary Health Centres (65.8%) or in Public Hospitals (34.2%). Professions ranged from being physician/paramedics (39.3%) to administrative/laboratory staff (31.7%); 17.0% had attended up to secondary school, the rest had a higher education. Considering health conditions, 1.8% reported a poor health status and 11.5% a chronic disease.Overall, 475 people (27.9%) reported Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, with fear of side-effects (41.4%) and lack of confidence in using the vaccine (23.5%) being the most common perceived barriers. Midwifes (61.1%) and assistant nurses (45.5%) were the most hesitant; physicians the less (12.3%). According to a binary logistic model, holding lower educational level (adjOR = 2.158; 95% CI:1.654-2.815), being female (adjOR = 1.622; 95% CI:1.289-2.040), having pre-existing chronic disease (adjOR = 1.954; 95% CI:1.280-2.983), and self-perceiving a poor health status (adjOR = 3.673; 95% CI:1.610-8.379) were independent predictors of higher odds of hesitancy.ConclusionCovid-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs represents an important public health concern, since they play a paramount role for a successful vaccination campaign within the community. Our results show the need in Iraq to implement educational interventions for strengthening the confidence of HWCs towards the Covid-19 vaccine, therefore positively influencing the general public's attitude.
| S-EPMC8662956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfluenza vaccination is the most efficient and cost-effective method to prevent influenza. To increase vaccination coverage, health authorities use various intervention programs (IPs), such as cost subsidies or placing vaccination centers in malls to make vaccination more accessible. Nevertheless, vaccination coverage has been sub-optimal in most developed countries, including in Israel.MethodsTo determine possible drivers of individual vaccination uptake and to examine the effectiveness of different IPs in increasing vaccination, we analyzed a telephone survey of a representative sample of the Israeli population conducted in March 2011 (n?=?470), and paper questionnaires at the work place and at homes during April-July 2011 to several sub-populations : soldiers (n?=?81), medical staff (n?=?107), ultra-orthodox Jews (n?=?72), Israeli Arabs (n?=?87) and students (n?=?85).ResultsThe population can be stratified into three sub-groups: Acceptors, who receive vaccination regardless of IPs (22%), Conditional Acceptors, who are only vaccinated because of IP implementation (44%) and Non-Acceptors, who are not vaccinated despite IP implementation (34%). Our analysis shows that the risk perception towards influenza relative to vaccination is higher in the Acceptors than in the Conditional Acceptors, with the Non-Acceptors showing the lowest risk perception (P?<?0.01). For Conditional Acceptors, physician recommendation is the most effective IP, regardless of the sub-population tested (P?=?0.04). Students and low-income participants were more prone than any others to be persuaded to receive vaccination following IPs. In addition, financial incentives were more effective for ultra-religious orthodox Jews and students; vaccinations in more accessible areas were more effective for the ultra-religious orthodox, soldiers, and medical personnel; and TV and radio advertisements were more effective for people above 50 relative to other age groups.ConclusionsRisk perception of influenza and vaccination governs the likelihood of successful implementation of IPs. Policy makers in Israel should invest efforts to increase the knowledge regarding influenza and vaccination, and should apply specific interventions customized to the preferences and diverse perceptions among the Israeli sub-populations.
| S-EPMC4021634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 pandemic has affected over 100 countries in a matter of weeks. People's response toward social distancing in the emerging pandemic is uncertain. In this study, we evaluated the influence of information (formal and informal) sources on situational awareness of the public for adopting health-protective behaviors such as social distancing. For this purpose, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted. The hypothesis proposed suggests that adoption of social distancing practices is an outcome of situational awareness which is achieved by the information sources. Results suggest that information sources, formal (P = .001) and informal (P = 0.007) were found to be significantly related to perceived understanding. Findings also indicate that social distancing is significantly influenced by situational awareness, P = .000. It can, therefore, be concluded that an increase in situational awareness in times of public health crisis using formal information sources can significantly increase the adoption of protective health behavior and in turn contain the spread of infectious diseases.
| S-EPMC7262187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a global challenge. The need to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine reluctance is critical. Our objectives were to evaluate sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors, as well as attitudes and beliefs that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population of Italy. Methods A total of 2,015 people were assessed in two waves (March, April and May, 2021). Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals who accepted the vaccination (“accepters”); (2) individuals who refused the vaccination (“rejecters”); and (3) individuals who were uncertain about their attitudes toward the vaccination (“fence sitters”). Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. The strength of the association between the groups and the participants' characteristics was analyzed using a series of multinomial logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation (one for each factor). Results The “fence sitters” group, when compared to the others, included individuals of younger age, lower educational level, and worsening economic situation in the previous 3 months. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, the following features emerged as the main risk factors for being “fence sitters” (compared with vaccine “accepters”): reporting lower levels of protective behaviors, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and higher conspirative mentality. Higher levels of COVID-19 perceived risk, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and protective behaviors were associated with a higher likelihood of becoming “fence sitters” rather than vaccine “rejecters.” Conclusions The “fence sitters” profile revealed by this study is intriguing and should be the focus of public programmes aimed at improving adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
| S-EPMC9098927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany countries, such as Germany, struggle to vaccinate enough people against COVID-19 despite the availability of safe and efficient vaccines. With new variants emerging and the need for booster vaccinations, overcoming vaccination hesitancy gains importance. The research to date has revealed some promising, albeit contentious, interventions to increase vaccination intention. However, these have yet to be tested for their effectiveness in increasing vaccination rates.Methods & resultsWe conducted a preregistered survey experiment with N = 1,324 participants in Germany in May/June 2021. This was followed by a series of emails reminding participants to get vaccinated in August and concluded with a follow-up survey in September. We experimentally assess whether debunking vaccination myths, highlighting the benefits of being vaccinated, or sending vaccination reminders decreases hesitancy. In the survey experiment, we find no increase in the intention to vaccinate regardless of the information provided. However, communicating vaccination benefits over several weeks reduced the likelihood of not being vaccinated by 9 percentage points, which translates into a 27% reduction compared to the control group. Debunking vaccination myths and reminders alone also decreased the likelihood, yet not significantly.DiscussionOur findings suggest that if soft governmental interventions such as information campaigns are employed, highlighting benefits should be given preference over debunking vaccination myths. Furthermore, it seems that repeated messages affect vaccination action while one-time messages might be insufficient, even for increasing vaccination intentions. Our study highlights the importance of testing interventions outside of survey experiments that are limited to measuring vaccination intentions-not actions-and immediate changes in attitudes and intentions-not long-term changes.
| S-EPMC9239477 | biostudies-literature