Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses in two academic hospitals in Philadelphia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at 2 large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: HCP were surveyed in November-December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (medical doctor, nurse practitioner or physician assistant, and registered nurse) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines. RESULTS: Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 medical doctors [MDs] and doctors of osteopathy [DOs], 582 nurse practitioners [NPs], 158 physician assistants [PAs], and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs and NPs and 13.1% of MDs and DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (odds ratio [OR], ∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR, ∼2). CONCLUSIONS: Although most clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race or ethnicity across all positions. These results highlight the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.

COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Earlier this month, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended Pfizer's COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine for children between 5 and 11 years of age-that's 28 million children. Yet surveys show that 42 to 66% of parents of these children are reluctant or opposed to seeking this protection. Without vaccination, it is likely that almost everyone-including young children-will be infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at some point in their lives. So, the question for parents and caregivers is: Which is worse, vaccination or natural infection?

Racial/Ethnic Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in 2 Large Academic Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Significant differences in hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity have been observed in several settings. Racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs), who face occupational and community exposure to COVID-19, have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To assess hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs across different racial/ethnic groups and assess factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study was conducted among HCWs from 2 large academic hospitals (ie, a children's hospital and an adult hospital) over a 3-week period in November and December 2020. Eligible participants were HCWs with and without direct patient contact. A 3-step hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between race/ethnicity and vaccine hesitancy controlling for demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, COVID-19 exposure risk, and being up to date with routine vaccinations. Data were analyzed from February through March 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as not planning on, being unsure about, or planning to delay vaccination, served as the outcome. RESULTS: Among 34 865 HCWs eligible for this study, 12 034 individuals (34.5%) completed the survey and 10 871 individuals (32.2%) completed the survey and reported their race/ethnicity. Among 10 866 of these HCWs with data on sex, 8362 individuals (76.9%) were women, and among 10 833 HCWs with age data, 5923 individuals (54.5%) were younger than age 40 years. (Percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics are among the number of respondents for each type of question.) There were 8388 White individuals (77.2%), 882 Black individuals (8.1%), 845 Asian individuals (7.8%), and 449 individuals with other or mixed race/ethnicity (4.1%), and there were 307 Hispanic or Latino individuals (2.8%). Vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black HCWs (732 individuals [83.0%]) and Hispanic or Latino HCWs (195 individuals [63.5%]) (P < .001). Among 5440 HCWs with vaccine hesitancy, reasons given for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (4737 individuals [87.1%]), newness of the vaccine (4306 individuals [79.2%]), and lack of vaccine knowledge (4091 individuals [75.2%]). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy was 4.98 (95% CI, 4.11-6.03) among Black HCWs, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.63-2.70) among Hispanic or Latino HCWs, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.21-1.82) among HCWs with other or mixed race/ethnicity, and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.26-1.71) among Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs (P < .001). The aOR was decreased among Black HCWs when adjusting for employment characteristics and COVID-19 exposure risk (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.96-6.00; P < .001) and being up to date with prior vaccines (aOR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.62-5.53; P < .001) but not among HCWs with other racial/ethnic backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that vaccine hesitancy before the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine was increased among Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs. These findings suggest that interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among HCWs are needed.

Perspectives on the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine: A survey of employees in two large hospitals in Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel have been identified by the ACIP as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey in November-December 2020 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia to evaluate the intention of hospital employees to be vaccinated. METHODS: The survey was sent electronically to all employees (clinical and nonclinical staff) at a children's hospital and an adult hospital. The survey was voluntary and confidential. Questions focused on plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available, reasons why employees would/would not get vaccinated, when employees planned to be vaccinated, vaccine safety and efficacy features that would be acceptable, and past history of receipt of other vaccines by the employee and family. Responses were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression methods. RESULTS: A total of 12,034 hospital employees completed the survey (a 34.5% response rate). Overall, 63.7% of employees reported that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 26.3% were unsure, and 10.0% did not plan to be vaccinated. Over 80% of those unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated expressed concerns about vaccine side effects and the vaccines' newness. In multivariable logistic regression, persons planning to take a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be older, male, more educated, Asian or White, up-to-date on vaccinations, without direct patient contact, and tested for COVID-19 in the past. No significant difference in intention to be vaccinated was found between those with higher versus lower levels of exposure to COVID-19 patients or the number of previous exposures to patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of hospital employees are planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, many are unsure or not planning to do so. Further education of hospital employees about the safety, efficacy, and value of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines is critical to vaccine acceptance in this population.

Implementation of a Mandatory Influenza Vaccine Policy: A 10-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has been recommended for more than 30 years. In 2009, HCWs were designated as a priority group by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current HCW vaccination rates are 78% across all settings and reach approximately 92% among those employed in hospital settings. Over the last decade, it has become clear that mandatory vaccine policies result in maximal rates of HCW immunization. METHODS: In this observational 10-year study, we describe the implementation of a mandatory influenza vaccination policy in a dedicated quaternary pediatric hospital setting by a multidisciplinary team. We analyzed 10 years of available data from deidentified occupational health records from 2009-2010 through the 2018-2019 influenza seasons. Descriptive statistics were performed using Stata v15 and Excel. RESULTS: Sustained increases in HCW immunization rates above 99% were observed in the 10 years postimplementation, in addition to a reduction in exemption requests and healthcare-associated influenza. In the year of implementation, 145 (1.6%) HCWs were placed on temporary suspension for failure to receive the vaccine without documentation of an exemption, with 9 (0.06%) subsequently being terminated. Since then, between 0 and 3 HCWs are terminated yearly for failure to receive the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of our mandatory influenza vaccination program succeeded in successfully increasing the proportion of immunized HCWs at a quaternary care children's hospital, reducing annual exemption requests with a small number of terminations secondary to vaccine refusal. Temporal trends suggest a positive impact on the safety of our patients.

Comparison of immunization systems in Japan and the United States - What can be learned?

Recently, efforts have been made to fill a so-called "vaccine gap" between Japan and other countries; however, more work remains. Concerns about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) resulted in an historically passive approach to policy making in the National Immunization Program (NIP). For example, reports of AEFI following human papillomavirus vaccine (HPVV) in 2013 led the Japanese government to withdraw its proactive recommendations, resulting in a sharp drop in HPVV coverage rate to less than 1.0%. In this report, we review key historical incidents that led to the current immunization system in Japan, compare it to that in the United States, and discuss strategies for improving the Japanese immunization system. By strengthening existing policies and programs, such as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups and AEFI reporting, compensation laws, and immunization education, the remaining vaccine gap in Japan could be filled.

Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation.

The World Health Organization has named vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex, but lack of confidence in vaccine safety, driven by concerns about adverse events, has been identified as one of the key factors. Healthcare workers, especially those in primary care, remain key influencers on vaccine decisions. It is important, therefore, that they be supported by having easy access to trusted, evidence-based information on vaccines. Although parents and patients have a number of concerns about vaccine safety, among the most common are fears that adjuvants like aluminum, preservatives like mercury, inactivating agents like formaldehyde, manufacturing residuals like human or animal DNA fragments, and simply the sheer number of vaccines might be overwhelming, weakening or perturbing the immune system. As a consequence, some fear that vaccines are causing autism, diabetes, developmental delays, hyperactivity, and attention-deficit disorders, amongst others. In this review we will address several of these topics and highlight the robust body of scientific evidence that refutes common concerns about vaccine safety.

The science of vaccine safety: Summary of meeting at Wellcome Trust.

Vaccines are everywhere hugely successful but are also under attack. The reason for the latter is the perception by some people that vaccines are unsafe. However that may be, vaccine safety, life any other scientific subject, must be constantly studied. It was from this point of view that a meeting was organized at the Wellcome Trust in London in May 2019 to assess some aspects of vaccine safety as subjects for scientific study. The objective of the meeting was to assess what is known beyond reasonable doubt and conversely what areas need additional studies. Although the meeting could not cover all aspects of vaccine safety science, many of the most important issues were addressed by a group of about 30 experts to determine what is already known and what additional studies are merited to assess the safety of the vaccines currently in use. The meeting began with reviews of the current situation in different parts of the world, followed by reviews of specific controversial areas, including the incidence of certain conditions after vaccination and the safety of certain vaccine components. Lastly, information about the human papillomavirus vaccine was considered because its safety has been particularly challenged by vaccine opponents. The following is a summary of the meeting findings. In addition to this summary, the meeting organizers will explore opportunities to perform studies that would enlarge knowledge of vaccine safety.

Japanese physicians' attitudes and intentions regarding human papillomavirus vaccine compared with other adolescent vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Japan has experienced extremely low human papillomavirus vaccine (HPVV) coverage following the suspension of proactive governmental recommendations in 2013. Several studies have reported that recommendations from physicians increase adolescents' vaccine acceptance. In this survey, we evaluated the attitudes and intentions of Japanese physicians related to adolescent immunizations, particularly HPVV. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a mailed questionnaire targeting 330 Japanese physicians including 78 pediatricians, 225 internists and 27 obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) in Kawasaki City, Japan in 2016. The survey measured physicians' reported frequency of educating adolescents about vaccines as well as their own perceptions and intentions related to adolescent immunizations. RESULTS: Valid responses were obtained from 148 (45%) physicians. Though 53% agreed that the HPVV should be recommended, only 21% reported educating about HPVV. The majority of respondents (90%) agreed that they would restart HPVV for adolescents if the government reinstated its recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Although Japanese physicians reported support for adolescent immunizations, they were less likely to recommend or discuss HPVV compared with other adolescent vaccines. Responses indicated this was, at least in part, due to the lack of governmental support for HPVV, indicating that their recommendations would improve with government endorsement of the vaccine.

Principal Controversies in Vaccine Safety in the United States.

Concerns about vaccine safety can lead to decreased acceptance of vaccines and resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. We summarize the key evidence on some of the main current vaccine safety controversies in the United States, including (1) measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism; (2) thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative and the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders; (3) vaccine-induced Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS); (4) vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases; (5) safety of human papillomavirus vaccine; (6) aluminum adjuvant-induced autoimmune diseases and other disorders; and (7) too many vaccines given early in life predisposing children to health and developmental problems. A possible small increased risk of GBS following influenza vaccination has been identified, but the magnitude of the increase is less than the risk of GBS following influenza infection. Otherwise, the biological and epidemiologic evidence does not support any of the reviewed vaccine safety concerns.