Dataset Information

Vaccine hesitancy: evidence from an adverse events following immunization database, and the role of cognitive biases.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process.

Methods

First, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).

Results

Our results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people's vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

Conclusions

This paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.

SUBMITTER: Azarpanah H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444164 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy (VH) remains worldwide a reason of concern. Most of the vaccination education strategies followed a "fact-based" approach, based on the assumption that decision making is a rational process, without considering the influence of cognitive biases and heuristics. Our study aimed at identifying factors involved in the parents' vaccination choice to inform and shape communication interventions.MethodsWe conducted an online national survey among parents between November 2020 and April 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 42 items organised in 4 parts: (1) personal information, (2) cognitive biases and risk propension, (3) Analytic Thinking (Cognitive Reflection Test), (4) conspiracy mentality, health literacy, and VH. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify latent variables underlying the 19 items related to the 6 cognitive biases. Factors were categorised in quintiles and the corresponding pseudo-continuous variables used as predictors of the VH. Logistic regression model was applied to assess the association of the VH with factors, conspiracy mentality and risk propension. We adjusted for age, gender, economic status, and education levels.ResultsThe study included 939 parents, 764 women (81.4%), 69.8% had a degree or higher level of education. Considering cognitive biases, four factors explaining 54% of the total variance were identified and characterised as: fear of the side effects of vaccines (scepticism factor); carelessness of the risk and consequences of infections (denial factor); optimistic attitude (optimistic bias factor); preference for natural products (naturalness bias factor). All factors were positively associated to VH (p < 0.001) as were conspiracy mentality (p = 0.007) and risk propension (p = 0.002).ConclusionsThis study confirmed the need to amplify the model used to analyse the VH considering cognitive biases as important factor affecting the parents' decision making. These results may be useful to design personalised communication interventions regarding vaccines and vaccination.

Project description:IntroductionThe rapid rollout of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for a large proportion of the population necessitates a strong emphasis on safety. Complementary to the existing spontaneous reporting system, The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb conducted patient-reported cohort event monitoring (CEM).ObjectiveThe primary aim was to investigate differences in the frequencies of any and commonly reported, 'well-known', systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with four COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer's Comirnaty®, Moderna's Spikevax®, AstraZeneca's Vaxzevria® and the Janssen vaccine). As a secondary aim, we analyzed the frequencies of well-known systemic adverse events after the first and, if applicable, second COVID-19 vaccinations, taking into account age, sex and prior COVID-19 infection.MethodsPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the Netherlands starting in February 2021 were analyzed using a prospective cohort design.ResultsData of 27,554 participants who received one vaccination and 20,682 participants who received complete immunization were analyzed. The percentage of patients reporting any AEFI was high and ranged from approximately 53% for the Pfizer vaccine to approximately 94% for the Moderna vaccine. The frequency of serious AEFIs was low, with the highest frequency found for the AstraZeneca vaccine (0.228%). AEFIs were most often experienced by participants receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines and the second dose of the Moderna vaccine; the Pfizer vaccine was associated with the lowest rate of AEFIs. Participants with a COVID-19 history before vaccination experienced commonly reported systemic AEFIs more frequently after the first vaccination than after the second vaccination. Women and young people experienced more AEFIs than men and older people, respectively.ConclusionsThe analysis of a large cohort provides important information about the rates of AEFIs across age groups, among brands of vaccines and between those with and without prior COVID-19 infection. Participants reported a high number of AEFIs in general, but the frequency of serious AEFIs was low.