Strategies to decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for children
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This study aims to understand acceptable strategies to enhance the COVID-19 vaccine uptake among mothers who have no intention to vaccinate their children. Methods
In a cross-sectional study, using an online survey in March 2021, we evaluated the variables within the Health Belief Model (severity, susceptibility, benefits, barriers and cues to action) along with parents’ sociodemographic characteristics, previous COVID-19 infection, job loss due to COVID-19 pandemic and the presence of healthcare workers among the household. Total number of children in the household and their chronic health conditions were also assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the intention to vaccinate children against the COVID-19 and associations with other variables. Key findings
The survey response rate was 32.30% (595/1842). Most of the participants were White (72.1%), 31–40 years old (55.46%) and married or in a cohabiting relationship (90.25). Out of 595 mothers with 3–15 years old children, 38.32% had no intention to vaccinate their children. Top factors associated with intention were perceived susceptibility (P = 0.002), benefits (P < 0.001), barriers (P < 0.001), cues to action (P < 0.001) and the presence of healthcare workers in the household (P = 0.032). The main barriers were concerns about vaccine safety, efficacy and side effects. The strongest cue to action was enough information being provided followed by doctors’ recommendations. Conclusions
Strategies to increase vaccination for children lie in the process of convincing parents with providing reliable information on the vaccine safety, efficacy and side effects by paediatricians and other healthcare providers.
SUBMITTER: Zakeri M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586731 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9004449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The success of vaccination programs is contingent upon irrefutable scientific safety data combined with high rates of public acceptance and population coverage. Vaccine hesitancy, characterized by lack of confidence in vaccination and/or complacency about vaccination that may lead to delay or refusal of vaccination despite the availability of services, threatens to undermine the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. The rapid pace of vaccine development, misinformation in popular and social media, the polarized sociopolitical environment, and the inherent complexities of large-scale vaccination efforts may undermine vaccination confidence and increase complacency about COVID-19 vaccination. Although the experience of recent lethal surges of COVID-19 infections has underscored the value of COVID-19 vaccines, ensuring population uptake of COVID-19 vaccination will require application of multilevel, evidence-based strategies to influence behavior change and address vaccine hesitancy. Recent survey research evaluating public attitudes in the United States toward the COVID-19 vaccine reveals substantial vaccine hesitancy. Building upon efforts at the policy and community level to ensure population access to COVID-19 vaccination, a strong health care system response is critical to address vaccine hesitancy. Drawing on the evidence base in social, behavioral, communication, and implementation science, we review, summarize, and encourage use of interpersonal, individual-level, and organizational interventions within clinical organizations to address this critical gap and improve population adoption of COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC7772995 | 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:ImportanceEnsuring widespread uptake of available COVID-19 vaccinations, each with different safety and efficacy profiles, is essential to combating the unfolding pandemic.ObjectiveTo test communication interventions that may encourage the uptake of less-preferred vaccines.Design, setting, and participantsThis online survey was conducted from March 24 to 30, 2021, using a nonprobability convenience sample of Canadian citizens aged 18 years or older, with quota sampling to match 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks on age, gender, region, and language. Respondents completed a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment with random assignment of brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson), information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic infection (yes or no), and information about the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no) before being asked about their willingness to receive their assigned vaccine and their beliefs about its effectiveness.ExposuresRespondents were randomly assigned a vaccine brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson) and information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (yes or no) and at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no).Main outcomes and measuresRespondents' self-reported likelihood of taking their assigned vaccine if offered (response categories: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely, scaled 0-1) and their beliefs about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness (response categories: very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or not at all effective, scaled 0-1) were measured.ResultsA total of 2556 Canadian adults responded to the survey (median [IQR] age, 50 [34-63] years; 1339 women [52%]). The self-reported likelihood of taking an assigned AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine was higher for respondents given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) and lower among those given information about its overall effectiveness at preventing symptomatic transmission (b, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00), compared with those who were not given the information. Perceived effectiveness was also higher among those given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05) and lower among those given information about their assigned vaccine's overall efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection (b, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03), compared with those who were not given this information. The interaction between these treatments was neither substantively nor statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that providing information on the effectiveness of less-preferred vaccines at preventing death from COVID-19 is associated with more confidence in their effectiveness and less vaccine-specific hesitancy. These results can inform public health communication strategies to reduce hesitancy toward specific COVID-19 vaccines.
| S-EPMC8485173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The scientific community has come together in a mass mobilization to combat the public health risks of COVID-19, including efforts to develop a vaccine. However, the success of any vaccine depends on the share of the population that gets vaccinated. We designed a survey experiment in which a nationally representative sample of 3,133 adults in the USA stated their intentions to vaccinate themselves and their children for COVID-19. The factors that we varied across treatments were: the stated severity and infectiousness of COVID-19 and the stated source of the risk information (White House or the Centers for Disease Control). We find that 20% of people in the USA intend to decline the vaccine. We find no statistically significant effect on vaccine intentions from the severity of COVID-19. In contrast, we find that the degree of infectiousness of the coronavirus influences vaccine intentions and that inconsistent risk messages from public health experts and elected officials may reduce vaccine uptake. However, the most important determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seem to be distrust of the vaccine safety (including uncertainty due to vaccine novelty), as well as general vaccine avoidance, as implied by not having had a flu shot in the last two years.
| S-EPMC8175934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article uses novel data collected on a weekly basis covering more than 35,000 individuals in the EU to analyze the relationship between trust in various dimensions and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We found that trust in science is negatively correlated, while trust in social media and the use of social media as the main source of information are positively associated with vaccine hesitancy. High trust in social media is found among adults aged 65+, financially distressed and unemployed individuals, and hesitancy is largely explained by conspiracy beliefs among them. Finally, we found that the temporary suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021 significantly increased vaccine hesitancy and especially among people with low trust in science, living in rural areas, females, and financially distressed. Our findings suggest that trust is a key determinant of vaccine hesitancy and that pro-vaccine campaigns could be successfully targeted toward groups at high risk of hesitancy.
| S-EPMC10245358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimLittle research exists on coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among caregivers of children with cancer. We aimed to (a) describe vaccine hesitancy in parents of children with cancer for both their child and self, and (b) examine the mediating role of parent-reported COVID impact on the association between COVID exposure and vaccine hesitancy.ProcedureWe conducted a national survey of parents of children with cancer via Facebook and Momcology, a pediatric cancer community-based organization recruited February-May 2021. Parents completed standardized measures online. A series of mediation models assessed the role of COVID-19 impact (e.g., effects on parenting and well-being) on associations between COVID-19 exposure (e.g., direct/indirect exposure) and vaccine hesitancy. Moderation models examined the role of treatment status, COVID-19 exposure, impact, and vaccine hesitancy.ResultsParents (n = 491; 90% mothers; 93% White) reported moderate vaccine hesitancy (M = 2.08, SD = 0.76). Specifically, 18.5% (n = 90) reported they would not vaccinate their child, and 24.4% (n = 119) would only consider vaccination. Parents expressed higher concerns about vaccine side effects for their children (M = 3.01, SD = 0.95) than for themselves (M = 2.61, SD = 1.03; t[479] = 9.07, p < .01). Mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of impact (95% CI [-0.013, -0.001]) on the association between higher exposure and higher vaccine hesitancy (b = .02, p = .06). There was no moderating effect of treatment status. Income remained a significant covariate (b = -.11, p < .01).ConclusionLower parent-reported COVID exposure, higher COVID impact, concern for side effects, and lower income may be important factors related to vaccine hesitancy among parents of children with cancer. Providers of childhood cancer survivors should address vaccine hesitancy and potential health risks.
| S-EPMC9088330 | 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: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: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