Tourism and vaccine hesitancy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhu OY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8592521 | 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: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: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: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:(1) Background: Antibiotic (AB) usage in food animals is a significant contributor to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Vaccination can reduce the over-use of AB treatment. Little is known about farmers' attitudes and beliefs about AB and vaccine usage in developing countries, especially in aquaculture. (2) Methods: We used the necessity/concerns framework to guide our research, where vaccine hesitancy is viewed as a function of the perceived necessity versus the perceived concerns about treatment. We measured disease and treatment perceptions in 400 Vietnamese farmers of Pangasius catfish, specifically regarding (a) chemical treatment of water, (b) antibiotic usage, and (c) vaccination of fish. (3) Results: Although farmers' concerns about AB usage outweighed necessity beliefs, 86.5% reported having used ABs on their farm. Knowledge and attitudes towards vaccination were positive, with views of its necessity outweighing concerns. However, if available, only 67.6% said they would definitely use vaccines in the future. Farmers were more likely to use vaccines if they reported having fewer problems with fish disease, felt that any concerns about vaccines were outweighed by their perceived benefits, had less mistrust of vaccination, and had fewer concerns about commercial profiteering. (4) Conclusion: Interventions that highlight concerns about continued antibiotic use, reduce concerns, and mistrust and increase the perceived necessity of vaccines combined with greater availability of vaccines may be the most effective way of overcoming vaccine hesitancy and increase appropriate use of vaccines by Vietnamese fish farmers.
| S-EPMC9312173 | 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:The impact of vaccine hesitancy on childhood immunization in low- and middle-income countries remains largely uncharacterized. This study describes the sociodemographic patterns of vaccine hesitancy in Chandigarh, India. Mothers of children <5 years old were sampled from a two-stage cluster, systematic sample based on Anganwadi child care centers in Chandigarh. Vaccine hesitancy was measured using a 10-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which was dichotomized. A multivariable logistic regression assessed the association between socioeconomic factors and vaccine hesitancy score. Among 305 mothers, >97% of mothers thought childhood vaccines were important, effective, and were a good way to protect against disease. However, many preferred their child to receive fewer co-administered vaccines (69%), and were concerned about side effects (39%). Compared to the "other caste" group, scheduled castes or scheduled tribes had 3.48 times greater odds of vaccine hesitancy (95% CI: 1.52, 7.99). Those with a high school education had 0.10 times the odds of vaccine hesitancy compared to those with less education (95% CI: 0.02, 0.61). Finally, those having more antenatal care visits were less vaccine hesitant (≥4 vs. <4 visits OR: 0.028, 95% CI: 0.1, 0.76). As India adds more vaccines to its Universal Immunization Program, consideration should be given to addressing maternal concerns about vaccination, in particular about adverse events and co-administration of multiple vaccines.
| S-EPMC7844137 | biostudies-literature