Hesitancy Toward a COVID-19 Vaccine
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10393-021-01524-0.
SUBMITTER: Thunstrom L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8175934 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9004449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC9225513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine reluctance among healthcare workers (HCW) can have widespread negative ramifications, including modeling behavior for the general population and challenges with maintaining a healthy workforce so we can respond to a resurgence of the pandemic. We previously reported that only one-third of HCW were willing to take the vaccine as soon as it became available prior to its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Here, we re-examine the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines among HCW several months after the vaccines have been made widely available. In this study, only 7.9% (n = 107) of respondents were hesitant to take the first or second dose of the vaccine. Younger age (18-40 years) and lower level of education attainment (GED or less) were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas self-identified Asian racial identity was associated with greater acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Among the vaccine-hesitant group, more respondents noted mistrust of regulatory authorities (45.3%), government (48.6%), and pharmaceutical companies (50%) than mistrust of doctors (25.4%). Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned that vaccination may be ineffective against new strains and booster doses may be required; however, vaccine-hesitant respondents' acceptance of a hypothetical booster dose was only 14.3%. Overall, vaccine hesitancy was observed to have demographic predictors similar to those previously reported; the hesitancy of some US HCW to receive booster doses may reflect a general hesitancy to receive other forms of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8617683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears.MethodsIn total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears.ResultsIn total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups.ConclusionsAcross the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.
| S-EPMC8220023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is critical to develop tailored strategies to increase acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine and decrease hesitancy. Hence, this study aims to assess and identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal. We used data from a community-based survey, "COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion", which includes data regarding intention to take COVID-19 vaccines, health status, and risk perception in Portugal from September 2020 to January 2021. We used multinomial regression to identify factors associated with intention to delay or refuse to take COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal was high: 56% would wait and 9% refuse. Several factors were associated with both refusal and delay: being younger, loss of income during the pandemic, no intention of taking the flu vaccine, low confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and the health service response during the pandemic, worse perception of government measures, perception of the information provided as inconsistent and contradictory, and answering the questionnaire before the release of information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. It is crucial to build confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine as its perceived safety and efficacy were strongly associated with intention to take the vaccine. Governments and health authorities should improve communication and increase trust.
| S-EPMC8004673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNovel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to achieving herd immunity, and thus, a prominent public health concern. This study aimed to identify the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy based on the World Health Organization's '3Cs' model (i.e., confidence, complacency, and convenience) in the United States (U.S.) and Canada.MethodsData from 7678 adults ages 18 or older were collected from the four most populous U.S. States, specifically New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and from English-speaking Canada at three timepoints, in May and July 2020, and March 2021 using a web-based survey (www.covid19-database.com). Sociodemographic information was collected, and comprehensive psychological assessments were administered. Univariate analyses were performed to identify the individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy, which were categorized as: 1) vaccine confidence, 2) vaccine complacency, 3) sociodemographic, and 4) other psychological factors. A series of models were computed using these categorizations.ResultsMistrust of vaccine benefit (β(SE) = 0.67(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.26) and lower perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (β(SE) = 0.68(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.12) were the principal determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Right-wing political affiliation (β(SE) = 0.32(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), higher risk propensity (β(SE) = 0.24(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), and less negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (β(SE) = 0.20(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03) were the main sociodemographic and psychological determinants. Other sociodemographic determinants included younger age, women, race, and employment status. Lack of vaccine confidence and complacency explained 38% and 21% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively; whereas, sociodemographic and psychological determinants explained 13% and 11% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively.DiscussionTargeted and tailored public health interventions that enhance the public's confidence in vaccines and emphasize the risk and seriousness of COVID-19 may address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Efforts directed toward specific marginalized and underserved groups may be required to promote vaccine confidence.
| S-EPMC8598046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding what lies behind actual COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is fundamental to help policy makers increase vaccination rates and reach herd immunity. We use June 2021 data from the COME-HERE survey to explore the predictors of actual vaccine hesitancy in France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden. We estimate a linear-probability model with a rich set of covariates and address issues of common-method variance. 13% of our sample say they do not plan to be vaccinated. Post-Secondary education, home-ownership, having an underlying health condition, and one standard-deviation higher age or income are all associated with lower vaccine hesitancy of 2-4.5% points. Conservative-leaning political attitudes and a one standard-deviation lower degree of confidence in the government increase this probability by 3 and 6% points respectively. Vaccine hesitancy in Spain and Sweden is significantly lower than in the other countries.
| S-EPMC9298705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe delay in acceptance or refusal to get vaccinated despite the availability of services is called vaccine hesitancy. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative in Pakistan faced consistent barriers preventing the eradication of the disease in the country. Similarly with the advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic mass vaccination drives were initiated to a vaccine hesitant population. The aim of this study is to explore the prevalence and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Pakistani population.Materials and methodsCross-sectional study conducted during July to September 2021 using a snowball sampling technique targeting the adult population of Pakistan. The modified version of the vaccine hesitancy questionnaire related to the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Vaccine Hesitancy matrix was distributed online.ResultsOut of 973 participants, 52.4% were immediately willing to take the vaccine and constituted the acceptance group whereas the remaining 47.6% who were still not sure formed the hesitant group. Support from leaders was found to be statistically significant for the difference between the hesitant and acceptance groups (p-value=0.027). Hesitant people were concerned about the effectiveness of the vaccine (60.9%) and potential side effects (57.9%) as it was not sufficiently tested prior to launch (44.7%). Age and education were significant factors affecting the acceptance of vaccination. The most trusted source of information regarding vaccination was health care workers (43.8%).ConclusionA moderately high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was reported in Pakistan. To overcome it, policymakers need to address the reasons for it. Leaders, celebrities, and healthcare workers can play an instrumental role in dispelling conspiracy theories regarding vaccines and making the vaccination drive a success.
| S-EPMC10435776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn the race to deploy vaccines to prevent COVID-19, there is a need to understand factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. Secondary risk theory is a useful framework to explain this, accounting for concerns about vaccine efficacy and safety.MethodsDuring the first week of July, 2020, participants (N = 216) evaluated one of three different hypothetical vaccine scenarios describing an FDA-approved vaccine becoming available "next week," "in one year," or "in two years." Dependent variables were perceived vaccine efficacy, self-efficacy, perceived vaccine risk, and vaccination willingness. Covariates included vaccine conspiracy beliefs, science pessimism, media dependency, and perceived COVID-19 risk. Data analysis employed multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).ResultsPerceived vaccine efficacy was lowest for the next-week vaccine (η2p = .045). Self-efficacy was higher for the two-year vaccine than the next-week vaccine (η2p = .029). Perceived vaccine risk was higher for the next-week vaccine than for the one-year vaccine (η2p = .032). Vaccination willingness did not differ among experimental treatments. In addition, vaccine conspiracy beliefs were negatively related to perceived vaccine efficacy (η2p = .142), self-efficacy (η2p = .031), and vaccination willingness (η2p = .143) and positively related to perceived vaccine risk (η2p = .216).ConclusionsThe rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine may have heightened public concerns over efficacy, availability, and safety. However, the current findings showed a general willingness to take even the most rapidly developed vaccine. Nonetheless, there remains a need to communicate publicly and transparently about vaccine efficacy and safety and work to reduce vaccine conspiracy beliefs.
| S-EPMC8590511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:How do attitudes toward vaccination change over the course of a public health crisis? We report results from a longitudinal survey of United States residents during six months (March 16 -August 16, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to past research suggesting that the increased salience of a disease threat should improve attitudes toward vaccines, we observed a decrease in intentions of getting a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes available. We further found a decline in general vaccine attitudes and intentions of getting the influenza vaccine. Analyses of heterogeneity indicated that this decline is driven by participants who identify as Republicans, who showed a negative trend in vaccine attitudes and intentions, whereas Democrats remained largely stable. Consistent with research on risk perception and behavior, those with less favorable attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccination also perceived the virus to be less threatening. We provide suggestive evidence that differential exposure to media channels and social networks could explain the observed asymmetric polarization between self-identified Democrats and Republicans.
| S-EPMC8051771 | biostudies-literature