Vaccine hesitancy and equity: lessons learned from the past and how they affect the COVID-19 countermeasure in Indonesia.

INTRODUCTION: Indonesia has made progress in increasing vaccine coverage, but equitable access remains challenging, especially in remote areas. Despite including vaccines in the National Immunization Program (NIP), coverage has not met WHO and UNICEF targets, with childhood immunization decreasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccination has also experienced hesitancy, slowing efforts to end the pandemic. SCOPE: This article addresses the issue of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on vaccination initiatives amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This article utilizes the vaccine hesitancy framework to analyze previous outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases and their underlying causes, ultimately providing recommendations for addressing the current situation. The analysis considers the differences between the pre-pandemic circumstances and the present and considers the implementation of basic and advanced strategies. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy is a significant challenge in the COVID-19 pandemic, and public health campaigns and community engagement efforts are needed to promote vaccine acceptance and uptake. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy promote trust in healthcare systems and increase the likelihood of individuals seeking preventive health services. Vaccine hesitancy requires a comprehensive, culturally sensitive approach that considers local contexts and realities. Strategies should be tailored to specific cultural and societal contexts and monitored and evaluated.

Trust matters: The Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe Study.

This article presents the design of a seven-country study focusing on childhood vaccines, Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe (VAX-TRUST), developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consists of (a) situation analysis of vaccine hesitancy (examination of individual, socio-demographic and macro-level factors of vaccine hesitancy and analysis of media coverage on vaccines and vaccination and (b) participant observation and in-depth interviews of healthcare professionals and vaccine-hesitant parents. These analyses were used to design interventions aimed at increasing awareness on the complexity of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals involved in discussing childhood vaccines with parents. We present the selection of countries and regions, the conceptual basis of the study, details of the data collection and the process of designing and evaluating the interventions, as well as the potential impact of the study. Laying out our research design serves as an example of how to translate complex public health issues into social scientific study and methods.

Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA). METHODS: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21-7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among American Indian and Alaska native college students: the roles of discrimination, historical trauma, and healthcare system distrust.

For American Indians and Alaska Native (AIAN) and other communities of color, experiences with discrimination and historical trauma may contribute to healthcare system distrust and negatively affect health care decisions, including vaccination. A saturated path analysis was conducted to examine the direct and indirect associations of thoughts regarding historical losses (of culture, language, and traditional ways) and AIAN racial discrimination with historical loss associated distress, healthcare system distrust, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among AIAN college students (N = 391). Historical loss thoughts and experiences with racial discrimination were strongly associated with each other, and both were uniquely associated with greater historical loss associated distress. In turn, historical loss associated distress was associated with greater healthcare system distrust, which in turn was associated with greater likelihood of being COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. While further research is needed, the findings suggest that to address health disparities for AIAN people it is necessary to consider how to best overcome healthcare system distrust and factors that contribute to it, including historical trauma and contemporary experiences with discrimination.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A comparative longitudinal analysis of the association between risk perception, confidence, and the acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Following the outbreak of COVID-19, scientists rushed to develop vaccines to protect individuals and ferry the world out of the pandemic. Unfortunately, vaccine hesitancy is a major threat to the success of vaccination campaigns. Research on previous pandemics highlighted the centrality of perceived risk and confidence as core determinants of vaccine acceptance. Research on COVID-19 is less conclusive, and frequently it relies on one-country, cross-sectional data, thus making it hard to generalize results across contexts and observe these relationships over time. To bridge these gaps, in this article, we analyzed the association between perceived risk, confidence, and vaccine acceptance cross-sectionally at individual and country levels. Then, we longitudinally explored whether a within-country variation in perceived risk and confidence was correlated with a variation in vaccine acceptance. We used data from a large-scale survey of individuals in 23 countries and 19 time-points between June 2020 and March 2021 and comparative longitudinal multilevel models to estimate the associations at different levels of analysis simultaneously. Results show the existence of cross-sectional relationships at the individual and country levels but no significant associations within countries over time. This article contributes to our understanding of the roles of risk perception and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines' acceptance by underlining that these relationships might differ at diverse levels of analysis. To foster vaccine uptake, it might be important to address individual concerns and persisting contextual characteristics, but increasing levels of perceived risk and confidence might not be a sufficient strategy to increase vaccine acceptance rates.

'We're at war.' Healthcare workers' experience with organisational change, uncertainty and vaccine hesitancy in 2021 and 2022 during the COVID-19 vaccination programe in Poland.

This article analyses the organisation of the mass COVID-19 vaccination programme in Poland and its consequences for various aspects of the social identity of healthcare workers (HCWs). Based on 31 in-depth interviews with HCWs, our study reveals the following: (1) Certain elements of the programme (inclusion of other healthcare professionals like pharmacists and laboratory diagnosticians as vaccinators) and the provision of additional infrastructure (pharmacies and shopping malls) may prompt scepticism and criticism in physicians and nurses who feel challenged about their professional autonomy and hierarchies; (2) Given the high levels of professional uncertainty, the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination is forcing HCWs to revise their attitude to medical standards, resulting in specific responses and adaptation strategies (ranging from the active involvement in the programme due to the sense of mission, to more or less evident scepticism); and (3) Confronting vaccine hesitancy, both among patients and other HCWs, contributes to the feeling of helplessness, leading to criticism of policymakers.

Nurses' attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative study (PROACTIVE-study).

AIM: To explore the attitudes of healthcare workers towards COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used. METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted between October and November 2021, with a total of 30 nurses from different contexts in Northern Italy. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: 'favourable', 'unsure' and 'contrary to' COVID-19 vaccines. The favourable position was underpinned by trust in science, research and vaccination; protection for themselves, their families, patients and the population; duty as professionals; necessity to set an example for others. Participants who were unsure had doubts about the composition, safety and efficacy of the vaccine and were sometimes afraid that media provided incomplete information. The main reason why nurses were against was the feeling that being forced to vaccinate perceived as blackmail. Favourable or unsure nurses struggled to deal with those who were against and developed a series of emotions that ranged from respect and attempt to rationalize, to frustration and defeat. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the areas of hesitation is essential to understand what affects the choices of acceptance, delay or refusal of vaccination. The issues that emerged regarding proper communication within the vaccination campaign highlights the key importance of adequate vaccination strategies. IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Understanding attitudes towards vaccine and related motivations among healthcare workers could help develop more specific and targeted vaccination campaigns that can ensure proper vaccination coverage rates and avoid hesitancy or refusal. IMPACT: Healthcare workers experiences of COVID-19 vaccines, their views and know how they feel during COVID-19 vaccinations. Healthcare workers had three different positions in COVID-19 vaccination. This research will guide and target future vaccination campaigns. REPORTING METHOD: The study is reported using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Policies and cultural beliefs: Community perceptions about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccine hesitancy is a global concern and a significant threat to COVID-19 vaccination programs. This study aimed to explore vaccine hesitancy from the perspective of the Indonesian community related to policies and cultural beliefs. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative approach was utilized in this study. SAMPLE: Twenty participants were recruited from various settings to ensure the representation of experiences in different contexts in Indonesia. MEASUREMENT: Audio-recorded, semi-structured, individual, in-depth interviews were carried out. Content analysis was performed to identify the main key themes. RESULTS: Twenty participants were recruited from various regions of Java Island, Indonesia. The participants revealed hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine, including the themes of mistrust, controversy, and the culture and beliefs of the community. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Indonesia, which may have implications for the community's perceptions and beliefs regarding the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. The trust issue remains a major challenge to convincing the community to accept the vaccine at the grassroots level. Targeted education and communication strategies are essential in addressing trust issues surrounding COVID-19 vaccines among critical stakeholders and religious leaders in Indonesia. Public health nursing plays a crucial role in fostering community acceptance and ensuring the success of vaccination programs.

The Be REAL Framework: Enhancing Relationship-Building Skills for Community Health Workers.

Trust plays an integral part in the effective functioning of public health systems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distrust of public health fueled vaccine hesitancy and created additional barriers to immunization. Although most Americans have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine, the percentage of fully immunized adults remains suboptimal. To reach vaccine-hesitant communities, it is vital that public health be worthy of trust. As trusted members of their communities, community health workers (CHWs) can serve as ideal messengers and conversation partners for vaccination decision-making. We developed the Be REAL framework and training materials to prepare CHWs to work with vaccine-hesitant communities nationwide. Through the four steps of "Relate," "Explore," "Assist," and "Leave (the door open)," CHWs were taught to prioritize relationship building as a primary goal. In this shift from focusing on adherence to public health recommendations (e.g., get vaccinated) to building relationships, the value of vaccine uptake is secondary to the quality of the relationship being formed. The Be REAL framework facilitates CHWs harnessing the power they already possess. The goal of the Be REAL framework is to foster true partnership between CHWs and community members, which in turn can help increase trust in the broader public health system beyond adherence to a specific recommendation.

COVID-19 vaccine refusal as unfair free-riding.

Contributions to COVID-19 vaccination programmes promise valuable collective goods. They can support public and individual health by creating herd immunity and taking the pressure off overwhelmed public health services; support freedom of movement by enabling governments to remove restrictive lockdown policies; and improve economic and social well-being by allowing businesses, schools, and other essential public services to re-open. The vaccinated can contribute to the production of these goods. The unvaccinated, who benefit from, but who do not contribute to these goods can be morally criticised as free-riders. In this paper defends the claim that in the case of COVID-19, the unvaccinated are unfair free-riders. I defend the claim against two objections. First, that they are not unfair free-riders because they lack the subjective attitudes and intentions of free-riders; second, that although the unvaccinated may be free-riders, their free-riding is not unfair.

Vaccine Attitudes and COVID-19 Vaccine Intention Among Parents of Children With Kidney Disease or Primary Hypertension.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Children with kidney disease and primary hypertension may be more vulnerable to COVID-19. We examined COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among parents of children with chronic kidney disease or hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Sequential explanatory mixed-methods design; survey followed by in-depth interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children aged <18 years with kidney disease or primary hypertension within a large pediatric practice. EXPOSURE: Parental attitudes toward general childhood and influenza vaccines assessed by the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. Kidney disease classification, demographic and socioeconomic factors, experiences with COVID-19, COVID-19 mitigation activities and self-efficacy, and sources of vaccine information. OUTCOME: Willingness to vaccinate child against COVID-19. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to compare parental attitudes toward general childhood and influenza vaccination with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Multinomial logistic regression to assess predictors of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. Thematic analysis of interview data to characterize influences on parental attitudes. RESULTS: Of the participants, 207 parents completed the survey (39% of approached): 75 (36%) were willing, 80 (39%) unsure, and 52 (25%) unwilling to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Hesitancy toward general childhood and influenza vaccines was highest among the unwilling group (P < 0.001). More highly educated parents more likely to be willing to vaccinate their children, while Black race was associated with being more likely to be unwilling. Rushed COVID-19 vaccine development as well as fear of serious and unknown long-term side effects were themes that differed across the parental groups that were willing, unsure, or unwilling to vaccinate their children. Although doctors and health care teams are trusted sources of vaccine information, perceptions of benefit versus harm and experiences with doctors differed among these 3 groups. The need for additional information on COVID-19 vaccines was greatest among those unwilling or unsure about vaccinating. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of parents of children with kidney disease or hypertension were unsure or unwilling to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Higher hesitancy toward routine childhood and influenza vaccination was associated with hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. Enhanced communication of vaccine information relevant to kidney patients in an accessible manner should be examined as a means to reduce vaccine hesitancy. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Children with kidney disease or hypertension may do worse with COVID-19. As there are now effective vaccines to protect children from COVID-19, we wanted to find out what parents think about COVID-19 vaccines and what influences their attitudes. We surveyed and then interviewed parents of children who had received a kidney transplant, were receiving maintenance dialysis, had chronic kidney disease, or had hypertension. We found that two-thirds of parents were hesitant to vaccinate their children. Their reasons varied, but the key issues included the need for information pertinent to their child and a consistent message from doctors and other health care providers. These findings may inform an effective vaccine campaign to protect children with kidney disease and hypertension.

Effective incentives for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

In this study, we examined the relative effectiveness of prestige-based incentives (vaccination of an expert scientist/president/politician/celebrity/religious leader), conformist incentives (vaccination of friends and family) and risk-based incentives (witnessing death or illness of a person from the disease) for increasing participants' chances of getting vaccinated with respect to their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine intention. We conducted a cross-cultural survey using demographically representative samples from the UK (n = 1533), USA (n = 1550) and Turkey (n = 1567). The most effective incentives in all three countries were vaccination of an expert scientist, followed by vaccination of friends and family members and knowing someone dying from the disease. Vaccination of an expert scientist was significantly more effective at increasing vaccine intention than any other incentive. Vaccine incentives, regardless of the incentive type, were much less effective for those who originally refused the COVID-19 vaccine than for those who were hesitant to receive the vaccine. Although the percentage of vaccine-hesitant participants was highest in Turkey, the mean effectiveness scores of incentives were also the highest in Turkey, suggesting that an informed vaccine promotion strategy can be successful in this country. Our findings have policy applicability and suggest that positive vaccination messages delivered by expert scientists, vaccination of friends and family and risk-based incentives can be effective at increasing vaccine uptake.

Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy presents an obstacle to the campaign to control COVID-19. It has previously been found to be associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, low medical trust, minority ethnic group membership, low perceived risk from COVID-19, use of certain social media platforms and conspiracy beliefs. However, it is unclear which of these predictors might explain variance associated with others. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a representative sample of 4343 UK residents, aged 18-75, between 21 November and 21 December 2020. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were assessed using linear rank-order models. RESULTS: Coronavirus vaccine hesitancy is associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, high informational reliance on social media, low informational reliance on print and broadcast media, membership of other than white ethnic groups, low perceived risk from COVID-19 and low trust in scientists and medics, as well as (to a much lesser extent) low trust in government. Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions and general vaccine attitudes appear uniquely predictive, jointly explaining 35% of variance. Following controls for these variables, effects associated with trust, ethnicity and social media reliance largely or completely disappear, whereas the effect associated with education is reversed. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening positive attitudes to vaccination and reducing conspiracy suspicions with regards to the coronavirus may have a positive effect on vaccine uptake, especially among ethnic groups with heightened vaccine hesitancy. However, vaccine hesitancy associated with age and gender does not appear to be explained by other predictor variables tested here.

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: Across 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.

A Comparison of COVID-19 Vaccine and PrEP Hesitancy Among Individuals Living in Mississippi: A Qualitative Study.

Mississippi (MS) trails behind other states in both pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. This study investigated similarities in willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and use PrEP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 with 15 clinical staff and 49 PrEP-eligible patients living in MS. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Overall, 51% of patients were on PrEP, and 67% received the COVID-19 vaccine. Among PrEP users, 64% had received the vaccine. Participants reported similar hesitations (efficacy, side effects, and no perceived risk) and reasons for use (health autonomy and protecting themselves and others) regarding PrEP and the COVID-19 vaccine. Taking PrEP did not increase the likelihood of getting the COVID-19 vaccine, thus engaging in one prevention behavior does not lead to engaging in other prevention behaviors. However, results indicated commonalities in hesitancy and motivators to utilize both preventive measures. Future prevention and implementation efforts can be informed by these commonalities.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Italian people with multiple sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy promotes the spread of infectious diseases including COVID-19 virus, limiting the herd immunity. Complications caused by COVID-19 in people with multiple sclerosis forced governments to ensure them prior access to vaccinations. Their propensity to be vaccinated needs to be assessed to promote adhesion to vaccination programs. The aim of this study was to explore the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate in pwMS. METHODS: We conducted an observational study recruiting patients affected by multiple sclerosis followed at MS Clinical and Research Unit of Tor Vergata University, Rome. We invited them to fill in an online survey about their intent to get COVID-19 vaccination. Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis test were performed to explore differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and emotional variables relative to the opinions about vaccinations. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the factorial structure of the questionnaire; Pearson's correlations between the factors and Big Five personality dimensions were also calculated. RESULTS: Of 276 respondents, 90% was willing to get vaccinated, while only 1.4% was sure to refuse the vaccination. Education level, opinions on safety and efficacy of vaccines, and emotional status were found to be associated to the propensity of getting the COVID-19 vaccination (respectively: p = 0.012, p < 0.001, and p = 0.0001). Moreover, general opinions on healthcare system were related to the intention to get vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Our results reinforce the importance of a good relationship between doctor and patient and the need to adapt doctors' communication strategy to patients' personalities and beliefs.

Standing alone: experiences of vaccine-hesitant Danish healthcare professionals during COVID-19.

AIM: The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of Danish healthcare professionals who were hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Interviews were conducted over the telephone in January and February 2021. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals experienced the need to avoid impossible conversations about vaccine hesitancy with their colleagues. They felt a lack of knowledge of long-term experience with the vaccine and a need to balance trust in themselves and the authorities. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals who were hesitant towards the COVID-19 vaccine felt they had to keep their concerns to themselves and felt isolated and pressured by their managers. This study is especially important for managers, who must ensure a trusting working environment in which employees can discuss their concerns without feeling pressured.

Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Hispanic adult population of South Carolina: a complex mixed-method design evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, only 47.6% of all eligible residents in South Carolina (SC) had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, with only 41% having completed their vaccination series. Additionally, only 27% of all Hispanics in SC had completed their vaccination series compared to 34.1% of non-Hispanics. Vaccine hesitancy is a complex phenomenon that is context and vaccine-specific. Focusing on unvaccinated Hispanics living in rural areas of SC, this study aimed to identify barriers to vaccination and provide an educational intervention designed to address vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: A complex mixed-methods evaluation design was used to conduct this study. First, in-person vaccine educational sessions were implemented, along with a pre-post-test survey, to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, motivations, barriers, and intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Second, in-person follow-up focus groups were held with the same participants to gather in-depth insight about participants' knowledge and attitudes about the COVID-19 vaccination. Third, an online follow-up survey was conducted to assess the effect of the training and discussion session on COVID-19 vaccination. Study outcomes were assessed among the 17 individuals who participated in the educational sessions and focus group discussions. RESULTS: Findings revealed that for unvaccinated Hispanics living in South Carolina; vaccine hesitancy was primarily driven by: 1) misinformation and information coming from unverified sources and 2) negative perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, participants were fearful that the vaccine development was rushed and that the vaccines might contain questionable ingredients that could cause strong side effects or even death. Participants were also concerned that vaccination might cause them to get sick and be hospitalized, which would have financial implications since they could not afford healthcare or take time off work. CONCLUSIONS: Program implementation and mass communication campaigns should focus on COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, including side effects, what to expect after being vaccinated, and how to look for information from reputable sources. The educational session implemented proved to be effective and helped reduce vaccine hesitancy since most participants (80%) self-reported receiving a COVID-19 vaccine after program participation.

Exploring the vaccine conversation on TikTok in Italy: beyond classic vaccine stances.

TikTok, a social media platform for creating and sharing short videos, has seen a surge in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. To analyse the Italian vaccine conversation on TikTok, we downloaded a sample of videos with a high play count (Top Videos), identified through an unofficial Application Programming Interface (consistent with TikTok's Terms of Service), and collected public videos from vaccine sceptic users through snowball sampling (Vaccine Sceptics' videos). The videos were analysed using qualitative and quantitative methods, in terms of vaccine stance, tone of voice, topic, conformity with TikTok style, and other characteristics. The final datasets consisted of 754 Top Videos (by 510 single users) plus 180 Vaccine Sceptics' videos (by 29 single users), posted between January 2020 and March 2021. In 40.5% of the Top Videos the stance was promotional, 33.9% were indefinite-ironic, 11.3% were neutral, 9.7% were discouraging, and 3.1% were ambiguous (i.e. expressing an ambivalent stance towards vaccines); 43% of promotional videos were from healthcare professionals. More than 95% of the Vaccine Sceptic videos were discouraging. Multiple correspondence analysis showed that, compared to other stances, promotional videos were more frequently created by healthcare professionals and by females, and their most frequent topic was herd immunity. Discouraging videos were associated with a polemical tone of voice and their topics were conspiracy and freedom of choice. Our analysis shows that Italian vaccine-sceptic users on TikTok are limited in number and vocality, and the large proportion of videos with an indefinite-ironic stance might imply that the incidence of affective polarisation could be lower on TikTok, compared to other social media, in the Italian context. Safety is the most frequent concern of users, and we recorded an interesting presence of healthcare professionals among the creators. TikTok should be considered as a medium for vaccine communication and for vaccine promotion campaigns.

A case study of using natural language processing to extract consumer insights from tweets in American cities for public health crises.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was a "wake up" call for public health agencies. Often, these agencies are ill-prepared to communicate with target audiences clearly and effectively for community-level activations and safety operations. The obstacle is a lack of data-driven approaches to obtaining insights from local community stakeholders. Thus, this study suggests a focus on listening at local levels given the abundance of geo-marked data and presents a methodological solution to extracting consumer insights from unstructured text data for health communication. METHODS: This study demonstrates how to combine human and Natural Language Processing (NLP) machine analyses to reliably extract meaningful consumer insights from tweets about COVID and the vaccine. This case study employed Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) emotion analysis, and human textual analysis and examined 180,128 tweets scraped by Twitter Application Programming Interface's (API) keyword function from January 2020 to June 2021. The samples came from four medium-sized American cities with larger populations of people of color. RESULTS: The NLP method discovered four topic trends: "COVID Vaccines," "Politics," "Mitigation Measures," and "Community/Local Issues," and emotion changes over time. The human textual analysis profiled the discussions in the selected four markets to add some depth to our understanding of the uniqueness of the different challenges experienced. CONCLUSIONS: This study ultimately demonstrates that our method used here could efficiently reduce a large amount of community feedback (e.g., tweets, social media data) by NLP and ensure contextualization and richness with human interpretation. Recommendations on communicating vaccination are offered based on the findings: (1) the strategic objective should be empowering the public; (2) the message should have local relevance; and, (3) communication needs to be timely.