Dataset Information

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

ABSTRACT: The reluctance of people to get vaccinated represents a fundamental challenge to containing the spread of deadly infectious diseases^1,2, including COVID-19. Identifying misperceptions that can fuel vaccine hesitancy and creating effective communication strategies to overcome them are a global public health priority^3-5. Medical doctors are a trusted source of advice about vaccinations⁶, but media reports may create an inaccurate impression that vaccine controversy is prevalent among doctors, even when a broad consensus exists^7,8. Here we show that public misperceptions about the views of doctors on the COVID-19 vaccines are widespread, and correcting them increases vaccine uptake. We implement a survey among 9,650 doctors in the Czech Republic and find that 90% of doctors trust the vaccines. Next, we show that 90% of respondents in a nationally representative sample (n = 2,101) underestimate doctors' trust; the most common belief is that only 50% of doctors trust the vaccines. Finally, we integrate randomized provision of information about the true views held by doctors into a longitudinal data collection that regularly monitors vaccination status over 9 months. The treatment recalibrates beliefs and leads to a persistent increase in vaccine uptake. The approach demonstrated in this paper shows how the engagement of professional medical associations, with their unparalleled capacity to elicit individual views of doctors on a large scale, can help to create a cheap, scalable intervention that has lasting positive impacts on health behaviour.

SUBMITTER: Bartos V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9200639 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Bartoš Vojtěch V Bauer Michal M Cahlíková Jana J Chytilová Julie J

Nature 20220601 7914

The reluctance of people to get vaccinated represents a fundamental challenge to containing the spread of deadly infectious diseases1,2, including COVID-19. Identifying misperceptions that can fuel vaccine hesitancy and creating effective communication strategies to overcome them are a global public health priority3-5. Medical doctors are a trusted source of advice about vaccinations6, but media reports may create an inaccurate impression that vaccine controversy ...[more]

PMID: 35650433

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Health literacy on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects people's capability to ascertain their health and health care quality during the pandemic. The objective of this study was to determine the levels of health literacy about COVID-19 vaccines and vaccinations (Vaccines and Vaccinations literacy-VL) in the Indonesian adult general population, assessing the perceptions of the respondents about current adult immunization and beliefs about vaccinations in general, and analyzing correlations of these variables with the VL levels. Methods: A cross-sectional study using a rapid survey was administered via the Internet. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics; the internal consistency of the VL scales was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient; the inter-correlation between the functional and interactive-critical VL questions, the underlying components (factors) and each question's load on the components were identified using a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). An alpha level lesser than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Responses to functional- and interactive/ critical- VL questions were acceptable and showed internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.817 and 0.699, respectively), lowest values observed were 0.806 for functional scale and 0.640 for the interactive-critical scale. The PCA demonstrated that there were two components accounting for 52.45% of the total variability. Approximately 60% of respondents were females (n=686). Almost all respondents used the internet to seek information regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Many used at least one social media actively with 74.4% of respondents sometimes believing the validity of this information. Conclusions: High scores were observed in both functional- and interactive/ critical-VL, and were quite in a balance between sexes in the prior VL and higher in females for the latter; these were also closely related to the educational level and age group. It is crucial to increase public health literacy in managing the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients.MethodsIn this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 μg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 μg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29.ResultsOf the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients.ConclusionsHomologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).

Project description:Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Dataset Information

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Publications

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

C﻿ommunicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Publications

C﻿ommunicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.

Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations.