Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy in Vietnamese Fish Farmers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chambers JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9312173 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the factors that impact COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in vaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients, and compare their perceptions with other rheumatology patients, given existence of data suggesting rheumatology patients may have disease-specific factors that influence their COVID-19 vaccine decision-making.MethodsThis cross-sectional study surveyed adult rheumatology patients from the Kaye Edmonton Clinic Rheumatology Clinic, in Canada, between June and August 2021, using an anonymous online questionnaire. Survey responses were analyzed for statistical differences using chi-square analysis.ResultsThe COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions Survey had a response rate of 70.9%. Of the total 231 respondents, 103 patients were diagnosed with vasculitis. At the time of the survey, 10.6% of vasculitis patients refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine compared to 6.3% for other rheumatology patients. Compared to other rheumatology patients, vaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients were significantly more concerned about almost every aspect of available COVID-19 vaccines [e.g., safety (p < 0.001), components (p < 0.001)], and feared that they could contract SARS-CoV-2 from a vaccine (p < 0.001). These vaccine-hesitant patients were also significantly less pleased with the government's pandemic response, less confident in healthcare team-provided information (p < 0.001), and more likely to report that healthcare providers had no role in their COVID-19 vaccine decision-making (p < 0.001).ConclusionVaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients may have multiple considerations influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, including vaccine and disease-specific concerns, along with unfavorable perceptions of the healthcare system (government and healthcare providers). Healthcare providers can address some of these concerns by initiating patient-centered discussions around immunizations to help support educated decision-making.
| S-EPMC10726054 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8292253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many countries have secured larger quantities of COVID-19 vaccines than their population is willing to take. The abundance and the large variety of vaccines created not only an unprecedented intensity of vaccine related public discourse, but also a historical moment to understand vaccine hesitancy better. Yet, the heterogeneity of hesitancy by vaccine types has been neglected in the existing literature so far. We address this problem by analysing the acceptance and the assessment of five vaccine types. We use information collected with a nationally representative survey at the end of the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary. During the vaccination campaign, individuals could reject the assigned vaccine to wait for a more preferred alternative that enables us to quantify revealed preferences across vaccine types. We find that hesitancy is heterogenous by vaccine types and is driven by individuals' trusted source of information. Believers of conspiracy theories are more likely to evaluate the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) unacceptable. Those who follow the advice of politicians are more likely to evaluate vector-based (AstraZeneca and Sputnik) or whole-virus vaccines (Sinopharm) acceptable. We argue that the greater selection of available vaccine types and the free choice of the individual are desirable conditions to increase the vaccination rate in societies.
| S-EPMC9345393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to measure the acceptability towards the COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients and to investigate determinant factors associated with the patient's choice.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey with a self-administered questionnaire delivered to 329 cancer patients in 3 oncology cancer centers in Tunisia between February-May 2021. Logistic regression was used to evaluate odds ratio predicting patient's intentions toward the vaccine.ResultsAcceptance rate was 50.5%, 28.3% (n = 93) reported to definitely refuse the vaccine and 21.2% (n = 70) did not make their decision yet. High educational level, history of comorbidities, history of influenza vaccination in the current season, and patient's opinion about the severity of COVID-19 did not predict vaccine resistance. However, patients who think that the vaccine may interfere with treatment efficacy (OR = 7.28, 95%CI [2.5-12.32]), or may impact cancer outcome (OR = 6.14, 95%CI [2.27-16.7]), were significantly more likely to refuse the vaccine. Patients who disagree that the vaccine is a major weapon against the pandemic (OR = 6.07, 95%CI [2.34-9.52]) or that it could reduce the virus transmission (OR = 7.34, 95%CI [4.22-11.81]) were also significantly more likely to reject the vaccination. Safety concerns were also significant predictive factors (OR = 7.9, 95%CI [4.10-11.27]. Confidence level in the authorities played a significant role in patient's acceptance of the vaccine, indeed patients who are not registered (OR = 5.9, 95%CI [1.58-8.7]) or not informed about the Tunisian national vaccination platform EVAX (OR = 5.51, 95%CI [2.1-7.9]) were more likely to be against the vaccine.ConclusionCancer patient's education about the impact of the vaccine on their disease and on the COVID-19 is needed. Governments should build strategies to gain more population confidence.
| S-EPMC8286987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although a large majority of parents vaccinate their children, vaccine hesitancy has become more widespread. It is not well understood how this culture of vaccine hesitancy has emerged and how it influences parents' decisions about vaccine schedules.We sought to examine how attitudes and beliefs of parents who self-report as pro-vaccine are developed and contribute to immunization decisions, including delaying or spacing vaccines.Open-ended, in-depth interviews (N=23) were conducted with upper-middle class parents with young children living in Philadelphia. Interview data were coded and key themes identified related to vaccine decision-making.Parents who sought out vaccine information were often overwhelmed by the quantity and ambiguity when interpreting that information, and, consequently, had to rely on their own instinct or judgment to make vaccine decisions. In particular, while parents in this sample did not refuse vaccines, and described themselves as pro-vaccine, they did frequently delay or space vaccines. This experience also generated sympathy for and tolerance of vaccine hesitancy in other parents. Parents also perceived minimal severe consequences for deviating from the recommended immunization schedule.These findings suggest that the rise in and persistence of vaccine hesitancy and refusal are, in part, influenced by the conflicts in the information parents gather, making it difficult to interpret. Considerable deviations from the recommended vaccination schedule may manifest even within a pro-vaccine population due to this perceived ambiguity of available information and resulting tolerance for vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC5554443 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDue to low vaccination uptake and measles outbreaks across Europe, public health authorities have paid increasing attention to anthroposophic communities. Public media outlets have further described these communities as vaccine refusers or "anti-vaxxers". The aim of this review was to understand the scope of the problem and explore assumptions about vaccination beliefs in anthroposophic communities. For the purpose of this review, we define anthroposophic communities as people following some/certain views more or less loosely connected to the philosophies of anthroposophy. The systematic review addresses three research questions and (1) collates evidence documenting outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities, (2) literature on vaccination coverage in anthroposophic communities, and (3) lastly describes literature that summarizes theories and factors influencing vaccine decision-making in anthroposophic communities.MethodsThis is a systematic review using the following databases: Medline, Web of Science, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. Double-blinded article screening was conducted by two researchers. Data was summarized to address the research questions. For the qualitative research question the data was analysed using thematic analysis with the assistance of Nvivo12.0.ResultsThere were 12 articles documenting 18 measles outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities between the years 2000 and 2012. Seven articles describe lower vaccination uptake in anthroposophic communities than in other communities, although one article describes that vaccination coverage in low-income communities with a migrant background was lower than in the anthroposophic community they studied. We found eight articles examining factors and theories influencing vaccine decision making in anthroposophic communities. The qualitative analysis revealed four common themes. Firstly, there was a very broad spectrum of vaccine beliefs among the anthroposophic communities. Secondly, there was a consistent narrative about problems or concerns with vaccines, including toxicity and lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, there was a strong notion of the importance of making individual and well-informed choices as opposed to simply following the masses. Lastly, making vaccine choices different from public health guidelines was highly stigmatized by those outside of the anthroposophic community but also those within the community.ConclusionContinuing to further knowledge of vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities is particularly important in view of increasing measles rates and potential sudden reliance on vaccines for emerging diseases. However, popular assumptions about vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities are challenged by the data presented in this systematic review.
| S-EPMC10644591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine-preventable-diseases are major contributors to disease burden in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is dearth of knowledge on the drivers of childhood vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria and its impact on coverage. Although understudied, pregnant women are a particularly important vulnerable group and very relevant for childhood vaccination decisions. This study’s aims are to adapt Confidence, Complacency, Constraints, Calculation, and Collective Responsibility, also known as the 5C psychological antecedence scale for the Nigerian context and to measure predictors of intention to vaccinate among pregnant women (prenatal) and subsequent vaccination behavior (postnatal). It is a longitudinal study that used multi-stage sampling procedure. One healthcare facility was selected from each district in five regional clusters, from which 255 pregnant women were randomly drawn. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect relevant data, including the 5C and some additional variables. Multiple linear regression using backward elimination analysis was performed to identify intention at prenatal and behavior at postnatal. Pregnant women’s intention to vaccinate unborn children was lower if they were Muslims, had lower confidence in public health system, if husband approval was important, and if they believed in rumor. At postnatal, vaccination behavior was more likely to follow mothers’ religious beliefs, when confidence in vaccine effectiveness was high and when mothers felt responsible for the collective. However, everyday stress (constraints) related to less vaccination behavior, and intention did not predict actual vaccination behavior. The 5C scale needs revision before being widely used in Nigeria. Yet, it is a better tool for measuring vaccination behavior than intention.
| S-EPMC9385635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study attempts to understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine demand and hesitancy by assessing the public's vaccination intention and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Confidence in COVID-19 vaccines produced in China and preference for domestically-made or foreign-made vaccines was also investigated.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional, self-administered online survey was conducted on 1-19 May 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used as a theoretical framework for understanding COVID-19 vaccination intent and WTP.ResultsA total of 3,541 complete responses were received. The majority reported a probably yes intent (54.6%), followed by a definite yes intent (28.7%). The perception that vaccination decreases the chances of getting COVID-19 under the perceived benefit construct (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 2.05-4.83) and not being concerned about the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines under the perceived barriers construct (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.09) were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of WTP for COVID-19 vaccine was CNY¥200/US$28 (IQR CNY¥100-500/USD$14-72). The highest marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by socio-economic factors. The majority were confident (48.7%) and completely confident (46.1%) in domestically-made COVID-19 vaccine. 64.2% reported a preference for a domestically-made over foreign-made COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intent and WTP. It is important to improve health promotion and reduce the barriers to COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC7775119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Vaccine hesitancy could undermine efforts to reduce incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is crucial to tailoring strategies to increase vaccination acceptance. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of and the reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Malang District, Indonesia. Methods Data come from a cross-sectional study among individuals aged 17-85 years old (N = 3,014). Multivariate ordered logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with postponing or refusing COVID-19 vaccines. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale was used to measure vaccine hesitancy. A wide range of reasons for hesitancy, including coronavirus vaccine confidence and complacency, vaccination knowledge, trust and attitude in health workers and health providers, coronavirus conspiracy, anger reaction and need for chaos, populist views, lifestyle, and religious influence, was examined. Results and discussion The results show that 60.2% of the respondents were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Low confidence and complacency beliefs about the vaccine (OR = 1.229, 95% CI = 1.195–1.264) and more general sources of mistrust within the community, particularly regarding health providers (OR = 1.064, 95% CI = 1.026–1.102) and vaccine developers (OR = 1.054, 95% CI = 1.027–1.082), are associated with higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is also associated with anger reactions (OR = 1.019, 95% CI = 0.998–1.040), need for chaos (OR = 1.044, 95% CI = 1.022–1.067), and populist views (OR = 1.028, 95% CI = 1.00–1.056). The findings were adjusted for socio-demographic factors, including age, sex, education, marital status, working status, type of family, household income, religious beliefs, and residency. The results suggest the need for an effective health promotion program to improve community knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccine, while effective strategies to tackle “infodemics” are needed to address hesitancy during a new vaccine introduction program.
| S-EPMC9909106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: We compared influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy levels in Black, Hispanic, and White parents/caregivers and identified barriers and facilitators to vaccine acceptance. (2) Methods: This was a mixed methods study. A cross-sectional survey of ED caregivers presenting with children 6mo-18yo compared vaccine hesitancy levels among diverse caregivers. Six focus groups of survey participants, stratified by caregiver race/ethnicity and caregiver intent to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, assessed facilitators and barriers of vaccination, with thematic coding using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). (3) Results: Surveys (n = 589) revealed Black caregivers had significantly higher vaccine hesitancy rates than White caregivers for pediatric influenza (42% versus 21%) and SARS-CoV-2 (63% versus 36%; both p < 0.05). Hispanic caregivers were more hesitant than White caregivers (37% flu and 58% SARS-CoV-2), but this was not significant. Qualitative analysis (n = 23 caregivers) identified barriers including vaccine side effects, lack of necessity, inadequate data/science, and distrust. Facilitators included vaccine convenience, fear of illness, and desire to protect others. (4) Conclusions: Minority caregivers reported higher levels of vaccine hesitancy for influenza and SARS-CoV-2. We identified vaccine facilitators and barriers inclusive of Black and Hispanic caregivers, which may guide interventions designed to equitably improve acceptance of pediatric vaccines.
| S-EPMC9697963 | biostudies-literature