Dataset Information

How do COVID-19 vaccine mandates affect attitudes toward the vaccine and participation in mandate-affected activities? Evidence from the United States.

ABSTRACT: The spread of COVID-19 has prompted many governments, schools, and companies to institute vaccine mandates. Proponents suggest that mandates will enhance public health and increase vaccination rates. Critics suggest that evidence of mandates' effectiveness is unclear and warn that mandates risk increasing societal inequalities if unvaccinated minority groups opt out of educational, commercial, and social activities where mandates are required. We conduct an original survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of 1,245 Americans to examine the efficacy and effect of COVID-19 mandates. Our findings suggest that mandates are unlikely to change vaccination behavior overall. Further, they may increase the likelihood that sizable percentages of the population opt out of activities where vaccines are mandated. We conclude that mandates that do go into effect should be accompanied by persuasive communications targeted to specific information needs and identities.

SUBMITTER: Kreps SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8888038 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do COVID-19 vaccine mandates affect attitudes toward the vaccine and participation in mandate-affected activities? Evidence from the United States.

Kreps S E SE Kriner D L DL

Vaccine 20220302 51

The spread of COVID-19 has prompted many governments, schools, and companies to institute vaccine mandates. Proponents suggest that mandates will enhance public health and increase vaccination rates. Critics suggest that evidence of mandates' effectiveness is unclear and warn that mandates risk increasing societal inequalities if unvaccinated minority groups opt out of educational, commercial, and social activities where mandates are required. We conduct an original survey experiment on a nation ...[more]

PMID: 35249774

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAs Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause a range of congenital anomalies, pregnant women may be a target population for vaccination in future outbreaks. Their inclusion in vaccine trials is critical to ensure safe and effective vaccines in pregnancy. Though many vaccine candidates are in development, pregnant women's willingness to participate in Zika virus vaccine research is unknown. This study aims to describe pregnant women's attitudes toward Zika virus vaccine research participation, as well as perceived barriers to and facilitators of enrollment.MethodsPregnant and recently postpartum women (n = 128) attending prenatal care at Massachusetts General Hospital completed surveys querying their willingness to participate in four hypothetical Zika virus vaccine trials and their motivations for participation. Demographics, information on prior Zika virus exposure, and vaccine acceptance were collected.ResultsMost women (77%) accepted participation in at least one hypothetical Zika virus vaccine trial, and women were significantly more likely to accept prospective enrollment in an inactivated vaccine trial compared to a live-attenuated vaccine trial (p-value <0.0001) or a nucleic acid-based vaccine trial (p-value <0.0444). Important motivators for participation included evidence from research with pregnant and non-pregnant people, a desire to protect the baby from Zika, perceptions of vaccine safety, and provider recommendation.ConclusionsA majority of women in this cohort were willing to participate in a Zika virus vaccine trial while pregnant, however, differences in acceptance exist between vaccine platforms. The high value placed on evidence by participants highlights the importance of gathering and communicating pregnancy-specific data to potential research participants and their providers. Women's motivations for accepting research participation during pregnancy are important to inform the Zika virus vaccine research agenda, candidate prioritization, and trial design.

Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, a mandatory policy on measles vaccination came into effect in March 2020. Physicians, as the main vaccine providers, have a crucial role in implementing it. Mandatory vaccination changes the preconditions under which patient-provider communication on vaccines occurs. Physicians might or might not favor vaccine mandates depending on, among other factors, their attitudes towards vaccines and capabilities as vaccine providers. The aim of this study was to investigate in different subgroups of physicians the association between various factors and their attitudes towards a mandatory policy.MethodsIn total, 2229 physicians participated in a mixed-mode online/paper-pencil survey. Respondents were general practitioners, pediatricians, gynecologists, and internists. Primary determinants were the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination, communication self-efficacy, patient clientele, projected consequences of the mandate and sociodemographic characteristics. Associations between outcomes and determinants were examined using linear regression analysis.ResultsApproximately 86% of physicians were in favor of the measles vaccine mandate for children. Regarding the 5C model, physicians were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they scored higher on confidence and collective responsibility, and lower on complacency and calculation. They were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they had higher communication self-efficacy and a more vaccine-positive patient clientele. Pediatricians were less in favor of mandates for children (80.0%) than other physician subgroups (87.1%). They were also less convinced that a mandate would result in more children getting vaccinated (59.3%) than other physician subgroups (78.3%). When controlled for these expected consequences, being a pediatrician no longer lowered the attitude towards the mandate.ConclusionsPhysicians in Germany are predominantly in favor of a measles vaccine mandate. Whether or not physicians believe the mandate to be effective in increasing vaccine coverage affects their attitude towards the mandate. In pediatricians, this belief explains their less positive attitude towards the mandate. In addition, physicians need adequate support to communicate well with patients, especially those who are hesitant, to booster their communication self-efficacy. To increase acceptance of vaccine mandates, the 5C model can be used, e.g., collective responsibility can be communicated, to avoid anger stemming from a negative attitude to mandates.

Project description:BackgroundVaccine equity has been a major concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the principle of vaccine equity, donor countries should apply the criterion of needs to make decisions about vaccine donation instead of considering recipient countries' economic status. We examine whether people follow the same criterion or consider other factors to decide which country to donate vaccines and how many vaccines should be delivered.MethodsWe conducted online surveys with the design of conjoint experiment in the United States and Taiwan in 2021. 1,532 American citizens and 1,587 Taiwanese citizens were interviewed. The respondents were broadly quota-matched to their respective demographic proportions on the dimensions of age, gender, and education. We estimated the average marginal component effects (AMCEs) of the conjoint attributes by using the OLS regression models with standard errors clustered at the respondent level.Results15,320 and 15,870 decisions on vaccine donation generated by conjoint experiment respectively in the United States and Taiwan were included in the analysis. Both American and Taiwanese people tend to donate vaccines to countries that suffer severe consequences of COVID-19 and democracies compared to authoritarian countries. However, they are less willing to donate vaccines to those with higher levels of capability in response to COVID-19. Taiwanese people tend to donate vaccines to countries having formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan (AMCE 13.4%, 95% CI 11.8%-15.1%). Nonetheless, American people would rather donate vaccines to countries without formal diplomatic relations with the United States (AMCE - 4.0%, 95% CI -5.6%--2.4%).ConclusionsThe findings reveal that politics plays a significant role in people's decisions about vaccine donation. Under electoral pressure, political leaders must think about how to respond to the public's preferences over vaccine donation to achieve vaccine equity and address the global health crisis.

Dataset Information

How do COVID-19 vaccine mandates affect attitudes toward the vaccine and participation in mandate-affected activities? Evidence from the United States.

Publications

How do COVID-19 vaccine mandates affect attitudes toward the vaccine and participation in mandate-affected activities? Evidence from the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets