Dataset Information

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal and associated factors in an adult population in Saskatchewan, Canada: Evidence from predictive modelling

ABSTRACT:

Background

A high population level of vaccination is required to control the COVID-19 pandemic, but not all Canadians are convinced of the value and safety of vaccination. Understanding more about these individuals can aid in developing strategies to increase their acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. The objectives of this study were to describe COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy and refusal rates and associated factors in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Methods

This is a cross-sequential study that consisted of pooled responses from weighted samples of 9,252 Saskatchewan adults (≥18 years) across nine rounds of data collection between May 4, 2020 and April 3, 2021. The outcome variable was vaccine intention: vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal. The independent variables were layered into socio-demographic factors, risk of exposure to coronavirus, mitigating behaviours, and perceptions of COVID-19. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression and a classification and regression tree.

Results

Seventy-six percent of the respondents indicated that they had been or were willing to be vaccinated, 13% had not yet decided, and the remaining 11% said they would not be vaccinated. Factors that increased the likelihood of vaccine refusal and hesitancy were lower education level, financial instability, Indigenous status, and not being concerned about spreading the coronavirus. Perceiving COVID-19 to be more of a threat to one’s community and believing that one had a higher risk of illness or death from COVID-19 decreased the likelihood of both vaccine refusal and hesitancy. Women and newcomers to Canada were more likely to be unsure about getting vaccinated. Respondents who did not plan to be vaccinated were less likely to wear face masks and practice physical distancing.

Conclusion

While many Canadians have voluntarily and eagerly become vaccinated already, reaching sufficient coverage of the population is likely to require targeted efforts to convince those who are resistant or unsure. Identifying and overcoming any barriers to vaccination that exist within the socio-demographic groups we found were least likely to be vaccinated is a crucial component.

SUBMITTER: Muhajarine N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8589208 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In Austria, data on vaccine hesitancy is scarce. Available studies suggest around 1-11% of parents refuse vaccination, while many more are hesitant and consider refraining from some but not all of the recommended vaccinations. However, the key drivers for vaccine hesitancy in Austria are largely unknown. To learn more about vaccination coverage, attitude towards and knowledge around immunization as well as views on mandatory vaccination, we conducted a survey in a rural Austrian lay population including adults and children. Two paper-based questionnaires, one for adults 16 years or older and one for children aged 6-15 years, were developed, then sent to all houses of a rural community in Austria as well as handed out at the local primary and middle school, respectively. Self-reported coverage rates of children and adults were found to be low. Within the surveyed population 3% of children had never been or do not get vaccinated. More than half (57%) of the survey participants had a positive attitude towards vaccines, 21% were without reserves, 16% were found skeptical and 5% had a generally negative attitude. Knowledge about immunization in general was poor. Younger adults and people with secondary education appear to be most skeptical and negative towards vaccination. Children's attitudes were closely linked to those of their parents. The major concern around vaccination in adults was fear of side effects. In adults, 54.2% support mandatory vaccination for Health Care Workers and 20.7% are against it. 39% of adults and 37% of children wanted more information on vaccination, preferably provided by physicians. Knowledge about disease prevention by vaccination should be improved and children could also benefit from an early age-appropriate vaccine education to strengthen health literacy. Physicians are the most trusted source of health information. Medical doctors should be aware of their very important role in transmitting trusted health information. This should include an up-to-date education in communicable disease prevention and immunization during their whole medical career. Furthermore, the curricula of health-care workers may need to be improved and harmonized concerning prevention and vaccination.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to describe and map the evidence on COVID-19 and H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Australia.IntroductionSince 2009, we have experienced two pandemics: H1N1 "swine flu" and COVID-19. While severity and transmissibility of these viruses varied, vaccination has been a critical component of bringing both pandemics under control. However, uptake of these vaccines has been affected by vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The vaccination behaviors of health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, are of particular interest as they have been priority populations to receive both H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Their vaccination views could affect the vaccination decisions of their patients.Inclusion criteriaStudies were eligible for inclusion if they identified reasons for COVID-19 or H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among physicians, nurses, or pharmacists from the included countries. Published and unpublished literature were eligible for inclusion. Previous reviews were excluded; however, the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched to identify additional studies for inclusion.MethodsA search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier databases was conducted April 28, 2021, to identify English-language literature published from 2009 to 2021. Gray literature and citation screening were also conducted to identify additional relevant literature. Titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate by 2 trained reviewers. Data were extracted in duplicate using a structured extraction tool developed for the review. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third team member. Data were synthesized using narrative and tabular summaries.ResultsIn total, 83 articles were included in the review. Studies were conducted primarily across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The majority of articles (n=70) used cross-sectional designs to examine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake of H1N1 (n=61) or COVID-19 (n=22) vaccines. Physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students were common participants in the studies; however, only 8 studies included pharmacists in their sample. Across health care settings, most studies were conducted in urban, academic teaching hospitals, with 1 study conducted in a rural hospital setting. Concerns about vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, and perceived low risk of contracting H1N1 or COVID-19 were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy or refusal across both vaccines.ConclusionsWith increased interest and attention on vaccines in recent years, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, more research that examines vaccine hesitancy or refusal across different health care settings and health care providers is warranted. Future work should aim to utilize more qualitative and mixed methods research designs to capture the personal perspectives of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and consider collecting data beyond the common urban and academic health care settings identified in this review.

Project description:The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic left the Indian healthcare system overwhelmed. The severity of a third wave will depend on the success of the vaccination drive; however, even with a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine, hesitancy can be an obstacle to achieving high levels of coverage. Our study aims to estimate the population's acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in an Indian district. A pilot community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from March-May 2021. The data was collected from eight primary health centres in Tamil Nadu. The eligible study participants were interviewed using a self-constructed questionnaire. A total of 3,130 individuals responded to the survey. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to assess the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Results of our study showed that 46% percent (n = 1432) of the respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine if available. Acceptance for the COVID-19 vaccine was higher among males (54%), individuals aged 18-24years (62%), those with higher education (77%), having the higher income (73%), and employed (51%). Individuals with no education (OR: 2.799, 95% CI = 1.103-7.108), and low income (OR: OR: 10.299, 95% CI: 4.879-21.741), were significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy (p < 0.05). Living in urban residence (OR: 0.699, 95% CI = 0.55-0.888) and age between 18 to 25 years (OR: 0.549, 95% CI = 0.309-0.977) were protective factor of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. While individuals in the age group 25-54years (OR = 1.601, 95%CI = 1.086-2.359), fewer education (OR = 4.8, 95% CI = 2.448-9.412,), low income (OR = 2.628, 95% CI = 1.777-3.887) and unemployment (OR = 1.351, 95% CI = 1.06-1.722) had high odds of refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns and suspicions about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine (63%) was the major reasons causing hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine The public health authorities and government need to design, develop and implement targeted interventions to enhance awareness about COVID-19 vaccines, and barriers and enablers to vaccine acceptance among individuals across diverse settings. Emphasis on involving local and religious leaders, ASHA workers, community healthcare workers, Anganwadi workers, and auxiliary nurse midwives can help to overcome context-specific barriers in areas of low COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, especially in rural settings.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 Evidence Support Team (CEST) was a provincial initiative that combined the support of policymakers, researchers, and clinical practitioners to initiate a new learning health cycle (LHS) in response to the pandemic. The primary aim of CEST was to produce and sustain the best available COVID-19 evidence to facilitate decision-making in Saskatchewan, Canada. To achieve this objective, four provincial organizations partnered to establish a single, data-driven system.MethodsThe CEST partnership was driven by COVID-19 questions from Emergency Operational Committee (EOC) of the Saskatchewan Health Authority. CEST included three processes: (a) clarifying the nature and priority of COVID-19 policy and clinical questions; (b) providing Rapid Reviews (RRR) and Evidence Search Reports (ESR); and (c) seeking the requestors' evaluation of the product. A web-based repository, including a dashboard and database, was designed to house ESRs and RRRs and offered a common platform for clinicians, academics, leaders, and policymakers to find COVID-19 evidence.ResultsIn CEST's first year, 114 clinical and policy questions have been posed resulting in 135 ESRs and 108 RRRs. While most questions (41.3%) originated with the EOC, several other teams were assembled to address a myriad of questions related to areas such as long-term care, public health and prevention, infectious diseases, personal protective equipment, vulnerable populations, and Indigenous health. Initial challenges were mobilization of diverse partners and teams, remote work, lack of public access, and quality of emerging COVID-19 literature. Current challenges indicate the need for institutional commitment for CEST sustainability. Despite these challenges, the CEST provided the Saskatchewan LHS with a template for successful collaboration.ConclusionsThe urgency of COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

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.