Market segmentation strategies can be used to overcome COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and other health crises.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Meng MD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661630 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The aim of this study is to correlate lifestyle characteristics to COVID-19 vaccination rates at the U.S. County level and provide where and when COVID-19 vaccination impacted different households. We grouped counties by their dominant LifeMode, and the mean vaccination rates per LifeMode are calculated. A 95% confidence interval for both the mean and median vaccination rate for each LifeMode is generated. The limits of this interval were compared to the nationwide statistics to determine whether each LifeMode's vaccine uptake differs significantly from the nationwide average. We used Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (ESRI) Tapestry LifeModes data that are collected at the U.S. household level through geodemographic segmentation typically used for marketing purposes. High risk Lifestyle segments and their locations are clearly the areas in the U.S. where the public might benefit from a COVID-19 vaccine. We then used logistic regression analysis to predict vaccination rates using ESRI's tapestry segmentation and other demographic variables. Our findings demonstrate that vaccine uptake appears to be highest in the urban corridors of the Northeast and the West Coast and in the retirement communities of Arizona and Florida and lowest in the rural areas of the Great Plains and Southeast. Looking closely at other parts of the West such as the Dakotas and Montana, counties that contain Native American reservations have higher vaccination rates. Racial/ethnic minorities also adopt the vaccine at higher rates. The most effective predictor of vaccination hesitancy was Republican voting habits, with Republican counties less likely to take the vaccine. The other predictors in order of importance were college education, minority race/ethnicity, median income, and median age. Our approach correlating lifestyle characteristics to COVID-19 vaccination rate at the U.S. County level provided unique insights into where and when COVID-19 vaccination impacted different households. The results suggest that prevention and control policies can be implemented to those specific households.
| S-EPMC9265792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination, albeit a necessity in the prevention of infectious diseases, requires appropriate strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy at an individual and community level. However, there remains a glaring scarcity of available literature in that regard. Therefore, this review aims to scrutinize globally tested interventions to increase the vaccination uptake by addressing vaccine hesitancy at various stages of these interventions across the globe and help policy makers in implementing appropriate strategies to address the issue.MethodsA systematic review of descriptive and analytic studies was conducted using specific key word searches to identify literature containing information about interventions directed at vaccine hesitancy. The search was done using PubMed, Global Health, and Science Direct databases. Data extraction was based on study characteristics such as author details; study design; and type, duration, and outcome of an intervention.ResultsA total of 105 studies were identified of which 33 studies were included in the final review. Community-based interventions, monetary incentives, and technology-based health literacy demonstrated significant improvement in the utilization of immunization services. On the other hand, media-based intervention studies did not bring about a desired change in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionThis study indicates that the strategies should be based on the need and reasons for vaccine hesitancy for the targeted population. A multidimensional approach involving community members, families, and individuals is required to address this challenging issue.
| S-EPMC9044888 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8586731 | biostudies-literature
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: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