Heterogeneity in COVID-19 vaccine uptake within low-income minority communities: evidence from the watts neighborhood health study.

BACKGROUND: The literature on disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake focuses primarily on the differences between White versus non-White individuals or differences by socioeconomic status. Much less is known about disparities in vaccine uptake within low-income, minority communities and its correlates. METHODS: This study investigates disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake within racial and ethnic minoritized communities with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and built environments, specifically focusing on Black-Hispanic disparities and disparities within the Hispanic community by country of origin. Data are analyzed from the fourth wave (June 2021- May 2022) of the Watts Neighborhood Health Study, a cohort study of public housing residents in south Los Angeles, CA. Linear probability models estimated the association between vaccine uptake and participants' race/ethnicity, sequentially adding controls for sociodemographic characteristics, health care access and insurance, prior infection, and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines. Differences in reasons for vaccination status by race/ethnicity were also tested. RESULTS: Mexican Hispanic and non-Mexican Hispanic participants were 31% points (95% CI: 0.21, 0.41, p < 0.001) and 44% points (95% CI: 0.32, 0.56, p < 0.001) more likely to be vaccinated than non-Hispanic Black participants, respectively. The disparity between Black and Hispanic participants was reduced by about 40% after controlling for attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines. Among Hispanic participants, non-Mexican participants were 13% points (95% CI: 0.03, 0.24, p = 0.01) more likely to be vaccinated than Mexican participants, however, these differences were no longer significant after controlling for individual and household characteristics (ß = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.07, 0.15, p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: There are sizeable racial and ethnic COVID-19 vaccination disparities even within low-income and minoritized communities. Accounting for this heterogeneity and its correlates can be critically important for public health efforts to ensure vaccine equity.

The social value of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: Willingness to pay estimates from four western countries.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines give rise to positive externalities on population health, society and the economy in addition to protecting the health of vaccinated individuals. Hence, the social value of such a vaccine exceeds its market value. This paper estimates the willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (or shadow prices), in four countries, namely the United States (US), the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy during the first wave of the pandemic when COVID-19 vaccines were in development but not yet approved. WTP estimates are elicited using a payment card method to avoid "yea saying" biases, and we study the effect of protest responses, sample selection bias, as well as the influence of trust in government and risk exposure when estimating the WTP. Our estimates suggest evidence of an average value of a hypothetical vaccine of 100-200 US dollars once adjusted for purchasing power parity. Estimates are robust to a number of checks.

Spillover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on attitudes to influenza and childhood vaccines.

The current study sought to determine whether public perceptions of other vaccines and diseases than COVID-19 have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We longitudinally examined whether there had been a change from before the COVID-19 pandemic to during the pandemic in: (a) influenza vaccination behaviour and intentions; (b) the perceived benefit of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (c) the perceived safety of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (d) the perceived severity of measles and influenza; and (e) trust in healthcare professionals in two samples of Finnish adults (N = 205 in Study 1 and N = 197 in Study 2). The findings showed that during the pandemic, more people than before had received or wanted to receive the influenza vaccine. The respondents also believed that influenza was more dangerous during the pandemic and that vaccinations were safer and more beneficial. On the other hand, for childhood vaccines only perceived safety increased. Finally, in one of the studies, people had more confidence in medical professionals during the pandemic than they had before. Together, these findings imply a spillover of the COVID-19 pandemic on how people view other vaccines and illnesses.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes towards mandates in a nationally representative U.S. sample.

Widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination is vital to curtailing the pandemic, yet rates remain suboptimal in the U.S. Vaccine mandates have previously been successful, but are controversial. An April 2021 survey of a nationally representative sample (N = 1208) examined vaccine uptake, attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Sixty-seven percent were vaccine acceptors, 14% wait-and-see, and 19% non-acceptors. Compared to wait-and-see and non-acceptors, acceptors were more likely to have a household member over age 65, have received a flu shot, have positive COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and view COVID-19 vaccination as beneficial. Mandate support was higher among respondents who were vaccine acceptors, had positive views about COVID-19 vaccines, believed in COVID-19 preventive strategies, perceived COVID-19 as severe, were liberal, resided in the Northeast, were non-White, and had incomes < $75,000. Public health campaigns should target attitudes that appear to drive hesitancy and prepare for varying mandate support based on demographics, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and the scope of the mandate.

Pediatric Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccines: Perceptions and Attitudes From the Food and Drug Administration Public Commentary.

Authorization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines for children has ushered in a new phase of the immunization campaign to address the pandemic but has been received with mixed responses from parents, children, and opinion leaders. Herein we consider perceptions and attitudes towards pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public commentary reflecting more than 63 000 comments.

COVID-19 vaccine behaviors and intentions among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 illness, is an important public health tool to reduce hospitalizations and deaths. PURPOSE: This report focuses on intentions and behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccination among United States (U.S.) adults ages 18-45. METHODS: From February 25-March 24, 2021, we conducted an online survey assessing COVID-19 vaccine intentions and behaviors, health beliefs, vaccine attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Participants were adults aged 18-45, living throughout the U.S. with oversampling in Florida, panelists of a research panel company directly or via verified partners, and able to read, write, and understand English. Associations between COVID-19 vaccination uptake, intentions, and other study variables were examined through multivariable logistic and proportional odds regression analyses. RESULTS: Among participants in the final analytic sample (n = 2722), 18% reported having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Approximately 31% of unvaccinated participants reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the next year, whereas 35% reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it were strongly recommended by a healthcare provider. All COVID-19 vaccination outcomes were associated with male gender, sexual minority status, higher levels of education, and previous influenza vaccination. All vaccination intention outcomes were associated with vaccine attitudes and geographic region. Vaccination status and intentions were differentially associated with multiple additional sociodemographic, attitudinal, and/or healthcare experience variables. CONCLUSIONS: Several demographic variables, vaccine attitudes, and healthcare experiences were found to contribute to COVID-19 vaccine receipt and intentions. Targeted efforts are necessary to increase uptake of the vaccine in the U.S.

Best shot: A motivational interviewing approach to address vaccine hesitancy in pediatric outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy in parents and childhood vaccine refusal is increasing. A standard of care to address this problem has not been identified. PURPOSE: To identify if the use of motivational interviewing by pediatric providers during routine well child visits, when compared to standard of care, would increase vaccine rates in children 0-12 months of age. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were also investigated. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was completed on a convenience sample of pediatric providers (N = 6) and caregivers of children 0-12 months of age (N = 66). Four providers were trained to use motivational interviewing. During the well child visit the Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines survey was completed, and the motivational interviewing intervention was implemented. Clinic's data were compared with other clinic data of non-trained providers. FINDINGS: Vaccine refusal/delays rate was 11.4% among caregivers. Vaccine refusal rate decreased after the intervention (9.00% pre-intervention and 6.40% post-intervention). An ordinal regression identified caregivers with higher vaccine hesitancy scores and more children were more likely to delay or refuse vaccines, while caregivers ≥30 years or with high income were less likely to delay/refuse vaccines. A difference in difference analysis identified that an additional 2.6% of children received vaccines when seen by trained providers compared to non-trained (ß = -0.330, OR = 0.719, p = 0.470). DISCUSSION: Findings indicate a condensed motivational interviewing education session may be clinically significant in decreasing vaccine hesitancy among this population. APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: A more robust study to confirm these findings is recommended prior to practice implementation.

Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines.

Social media vaccine misinformation can negatively influence vaccine attitudes. It is urgent to develop communication approaches to reduce the misinformation's impact. This study aimed to test the effects of fact-checking labels for misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. An online survey experiment with 1198 participants recruited from a U.S. national sample was conducted in 2018. Participants were randomly assigned to six conditions: misinformation control, or fact-checking label conditions attributed to algorithms, news media, health institutions, research universities, or fact-checking organizations. We analyzed differences in vaccine attitudes between the fact-checking label and control conditions. Further, we compared perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the five categories of fact-checking sources. Fact-checking labels attached to misinformation posts made vaccine attitudes more positive compared to the misinformation control condition (P = .003, Cohen's d= 0.21). Conspiracy ideation moderated the effect of the labels on vaccine attitudes (P = .02). Universities and health institutions were rated significantly higher on source expertise than other sources. Mediation analyses showed labels attributed to universities and health institutions indirectly resulted in more positive attitudes than other sources through perceived expertise. Exposure to fact-checking labels on misinformation can generate more positive attitudes toward vaccines in comparison to exposure to misinformation. Incorporating labels from trusted universities and health institutions on social media platforms is a promising direction for addressing the vaccine misinformation problem. This points to the necessity for closer collaboration between public health and research institutions and social media companies to join efforts in addressing the current misinformation threat.

Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.

Intellectual humility's association with vaccine attitudes and intentions.

Vaccinations are critical to public health but uptake levels remain suboptimal. Intellectual humility, a virtue characterized by nonjudgmental recognition of one's own intellectual fallibility, may support the promotion of favorable vaccine attitudes. The current study investigated whether intellectual humility is related to anti-vaccination attitudes and intentions to vaccinate against the flu. Through an online survey management system, participants (N = 246, Mage = 39.06 years, SDage = 10.57, 50.80% female, 79.20% White, 6.50% Black/African American, 7.80% Asian, 1.20% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.30% Other) completed a measure for intellectual humility, the anti-vaccination attitudes (VAX) scale, and a three-item flu vaccine intention scale. We found that intellectual humility negatively correlated with anti-vaccination attitudes. This correlation was largely driven by openness to revising one's viewpoint and lack of intellectual overconfidence. Additionally, we found that intellectual humility did not relate to flu vaccination intentions. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings and their potential to support the eventual development of strategies to leverage intellectual humility into a health promotion strategy.

Disgust as an emotional driver of vaccine attitudes and uptake? A mediation analysis.

Research on the drivers of vaccine acceptance has expanded but most interventions fall short of coverage targets. We explored whether vaccine uptake is driven directly or indirectly by disgust with attitudes towards vaccines acting as a possible mediator. An online cross-sectional study of 1007 adults of the USA via Amazon's Mechanical Turk was conducted in January 2017. The questionnaire consisted of four sections: (1) items assessing attitudes towards vaccines and vaccine uptake, (2) revised Disgust Scale (DS-R) to measure Disgust Sensitivity, (3) Perceived Vulnerability to Disease scale (PVD) to measure Germ Aversion and Perceived Susceptibility, and (4) socio-demographic information. Using mediation analysis, we assess the direct, the indirect (through Vaccine Attitudes) and the total effect of Disgust Sensitivity, Germ Aversion and Perceived Susceptibility on 2016 self-reported flu vaccine uptake. Mediation analysis showed the effect of Disgust Sensitivity and Germ Aversion on vaccine uptake to be twofold: a direct positive effect on vaccine uptake and an indirect negative effect through Vaccine Attitudes. In contrast, Perceived Susceptibility was found to have only a direct positive effect on vaccine uptake. Nonetheless, these effects were attenuated and small compared to economic, logistic and psychological determinants of vaccine uptake.

Parental Immunisation Needs and Attitudes Survey in paediatric hospital clinics and community maternal and child health centres in Melbourne, Australia.

AIM: Despite Australia's high vaccination rates, an estimated 3.3% of children are under-vaccinated due to vaccine refusal and the proportion of parents with concerns is unclear. Amongst Australian parents, we aimed to determine the prevalence of vaccine concerns, resources and health-care providers (HCPs) accessed and satisfaction with these resources in two different settings. We also aimed to identify relationships between the level of vaccine concern, socio-economic status and vaccine uptake. METHODS: Parents of children under 5 years attending general paediatric clinics in a tertiary paediatric hospital (n = 301/398, 76%) and children under 19 months attending community maternal child health centres (n = 311/391, 81%) completed the survey. Vaccination status was obtained from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. RESULTS: Despite high support for vaccination (98%, confidence interval (CI) 97-99), 43% of parents reported vaccine concerns (CI 40-47) including the number of vaccines given in the first 2 years (25%, CI 22 to 29), vaccine ingredients (22%, CI 19-25), allergies (18%, CI 15-21), weakening of the immune system (17%, CI 14-20) and autism (11%, CI 8-13). HCPs were the most commonly accessed and trusted information source. In all, 23% of parents reported insufficient knowledge to make good vaccination decisions (CI 20-26). There was little evidence of an association between parental vaccine acceptance or socio-economic status and vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high support for vaccines, nearly half of Australian parents have some concerns and a quarter lack vaccine decision-making confidence regarding childhood vaccines. Parents frequently access and report high trust in HCPs, who are best placed to address parental vaccine concerns through provision of clear information, using effective communication strategies. Further research in more highly hesitant populations is required to determine the relationship between the level and nature of vaccination concerns and vaccine uptake.

Vaccine discussions with parents: The experience of Australian paediatricians.

AIM: Health-care providers are crucial in maintaining parental confidence in vaccination. Health-care providers are the most commonly accessed resource by parents for vaccine-related information and are highly trusted. We investigated paediatricians' (i) frequency of vaccine discussions; (ii) specific vaccine-related topics discussed; (iii) perceived role in childhood vaccination; (iv) challenges faced when having discussions; (v) confidence in vaccine-related knowledge and communication skills; and (vi) interest in online education and training. METHODS: We invited members of the Australian Paediatric Research Network to complete an online Research Electronic Data Capture survey in 2015-2016. RESULTS: Of 383 active Australian Paediatric Research Network members, 165 (43%) completed the online survey. A total of 61% reported 'frequently' or 'almost always' having vaccine-related discussions, with 15% 'rarely' having them. 'Lack of time' was the most commonly reported barrier to having vaccine discussions (54%). Vaccine necessity was most commonly discussed (33%), followed by vaccine safety (24%), general vaccine concerns (23%) and catch-up schedules (23%). While only 25% of paediatricians lacked confidence in their vaccine-related knowledge and 11% in their communication skills, most expressed interest in online training to address vaccine knowledge (62%) and communication skills (53%). CONCLUSION: Paediatricians play a key role in maintaining public confidence in vaccination. However, opportunities to address concerns are not being maximised by Australian paediatricians. There is a need and desire for training and resources to increase vaccine knowledge and communication skills for paediatricians, to optimise the frequency and effectiveness of vaccine discussions with parents and to ensure ongoing high immunisation coverage rates in Australia.

Antenatal pertussis vaccination: Are we implementing best evidence into practice?

Maternal immunisation is the most effective strategy to reduce infant morbidity and mortality from pertussis infection, and is now standard of care in many countries, including Australia. However, uptake cannot be guaranteed unless the barriers to implementing programs locally are understood. Education and resources for antenatal care providers, embedding vaccination within antenatal care, and provision of culturally appropriate information for pregnant women are integral to a successful antenatal vaccination program.

Attitudes toward a future norovirus vaccine among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system in Portland, Oregon, 2016-2017.

With recent advances in U.S. clinical trials for norovirus vaccines, it is an opportune time to examine what is known about the public receptivity to this novel vaccine. From October 2016-September 2017, we surveyed Kaiser Permanente Northwest members in Portland, Oregon, to ask their level of agreement on a 5-point scale with statements about the need for and willingness to get a potential norovirus vaccine for themselves or their child and analyzed their responses according to age, occupational status, prior vaccine uptake, and history of prior norovirus diagnoses. The survey response rate was 13.5% (n = 3,894); 807 (21%) responded as legal guardians, on behalf of a child <18 y of age and 3,087 (79%) were adults aged 18+ y. The majority of respondents were in agreement about getting the norovirus vaccine, if available (60% of legal guardians, 52% of adults aged 18-64 y, and 55% of adults aged 65+ y). Prior vaccination for influenza and rotavirus (among children) was the only correlate significantly associated with more positive attitudes toward receiving norovirus vaccine. Pre-pandemic attitudes in our all-ages study population reveal generally positive attitudes toward willingness to get a norovirus vaccine, particularly among those who previously received influenza or rotavirus vaccines.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination among urogynecology patients.

Objective: Urogynecology patients skew older and often require intimate exams to treat non-life-threatening conditions, thus making care particularly susceptible to the effects of COVID-19. We aim to understand COVID-19 vaccination attitudes amongst urogynecology patients during the pandemic, which has adversely affected healthcare delivery, to identify measures that can be undertaken to improve care going forward. Study design: Cross-sectional surveys of urogynecology patients were conducted in three different states (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) between March and August 2021. Demographics, vaccination status, and COVID-19 attitudes were analyzed. Chi-square tests investigated group differences between vaccine-hesitant and unhesitant subjects. Results: Out of 158 surveys, eighty-three percent of respondents were vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated. Older age and regular flu vaccination predicted COVID-19 vaccination. Ninety-three percent of subjects were comfortable attending in-person visits. However, vaccine-hesitant individuals were less comfortable attending in-person and were significantly less likely to be comforted by clinic interventions, such as masking. Hesitant and unhesitant groups trusted doctors or medical professionals most for their source of COVID-19 information. Conclusions: Urogynecology patients mirror the general older population's COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, with distinct differences between hesitant and unhesitant groups. Vaccine-hesitant subjects appear less comfortable coming to in-person visits and less comforted by possible interventions, posing a difficult obstacle for clinics to overcome. High levels of patient trust suggest healthcare providers can play a crucial role in encouraging COVID-19 vaccination and combating misinformation.

Los Angeles County dentists' opinions on discussing human papilloma virus-related oral health issues and recommending vaccine to patients.

Dentists are well-positioned to discuss oral health issues related to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and recommend the HPV vaccine to their patients, mainly because the HPV virus causes oropharyngeal cancers.. We assessed Los Angeles (LA) County dentists' opinions on discussing HPV-related oral health issues and recommending the HPV vaccine to their patients. We tested if opinions differed between dentists whose primary patient population was only adults versus children and adults. We mailed a 19-item survey to 2000 randomly sampled LA County dentists for this cross-sectional study. The primary outcome variable was a summary opinion score of 7 opinion statements. We ran descriptive, bivariate comparisons and adjusted linear regression models. Overall, 261 dentists completed the survey. A majority (58.5%) worried they would lose patients if they recommended the vaccine; 49% thought dentists were not appropriate to educate, counsel, or advise on HPV-related issues; 42% were concerned about the safety of the vaccine; and 40% did not feel comfortable recommending the vaccine. The mean summary opinion score was 21.4 ± 5.4 for the total sample. Regression analysis showed no differences in opinions between dentists whose primary patient population was only adults versus children and adults (Coefficient = 0.146, p = 0.83). Overall, the responding dentists were not very favorable about discussing oral health-related HPV issues and recommending the HPV vaccine to their patients. Additionally, the overall opinions were similar between dentists whose primary patient population was only adults versus children and adults.

Comparing the influence of intellectual humility, religiosity, and political conservatism on vaccine attitudes in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Three studies of US, Canada, and UK respondents examined pro-vaccine attitudes as predicted by intellectual humility, belief in science, religiosity, and political attitudes. Intellectual humility refers to the capacity to understand limits of one's own beliefs and showed strong relationship to pro-vaccine attitudes across samples. Pro-vaccine attitudes were correlated with intellectual humility and negatively correlated with political conservatism and religiosity. Regression models compared overlapping influences of belief predictors on vaccine attitudes. Across countries, intellectual humility was the most consistent predictor of pro-vaccine attitudes when controlling for other beliefs and thinking styles (political conservatism, belief in science, religiosity). In comparison, political conservatism was a significant predictor of vaccine attitudes in regression models on US and Canadian respondents, and religiosity only held as a predictor in regression models in the US sample. We conclude with a discussion of intellectual humility as a predictor of vaccine attitudes and implications for research and persuasion.

Attitudes and practices to adult vaccination among physicians before and after COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates.

Introduction: Vaccination remains underutilised worldwide with low vaccine uptake rates across the board with many adults remaining unprotected. Across the Arab world, attitudes towards vaccines vary but high rates of vaccine hesitancy have been found. This study aims to explore the adult vaccination attitudes and practices by physicians in the UAE, both before and after the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines. Methodology: This cross-sectional, descriptive study used convenience and snowball sampling to collect comprehensive data from UAE physicians. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in two stages: the first (pre-COVID-19 vaccines) between the months of June and October 2020 and the second between the months of November 2022 and March 2023. Results: 1000 responses, 500 from each time period, were collected. Nearly a third were family physicians or internists with more than 70% of the physicians working in governmental hospitals. 95% agreed that vaccines are safe in both cohorts but 74.4% reported not having enough time to advise about vaccines. 80.8% of physicians in the 2022 cohort reported safety concerns as the most common reason for patients to refuse vaccines. The most recommended vaccines were influenza (68.6%), Hepatitis B (66.0%) and HPV (61.4%), with pneumococcal coming in close at 57.8%. Family medicine physicians showed the highest utilisation of preventive practices across both cohorts. Nearly half of all family medicine physicians did not regularly evaluate both the influenza and general immunisation status of their patients. 54.6% of physicians reported having patients with VPDs in the last five years (not including COVID-19) in 2022. Conclusion: Physicians have overly positive attitudes, but their practices reflect a more superficial appreciation of vaccines and lack of initiative. Physicians need to adopt a pro-vaccine stance, armed with the proper tools and the right mentality and beliefs.

Message Effectiveness of Fear Appeals in Vaccination Communication Campaigns: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review of 54 cross-disciplinary peer-reviewed causal empirical studies helps public health officials, researchers, and healthcare professionals better comprehend the effects of fear appeals in vaccine promotional campaigns on message processing, persuasion, vaccination attitudes, and vaccination intentions. This review documents inconsistent findings across studies, which it attempts to clarify by considering differences in research designs, sample populations, and outcomes measured. In general, we find that fear appeals increase risk perceptions, message involvement, and vaccination attitudes. However, fear appeals have less influence on vaccination intentions, especially among female and general adult populations or populations from the U.S. and other Western cultures. On the other hand, the effect of fear appeals on vaccination intentions is stronger among student populations and those from China (People's Republic of China and Hong Kong) and other non-Western cultures. Also, fear appeals are less persuasive when promoting COVID-19 vaccines and boosters than they are for other vaccines (e.g., HPV, influenza, MMR). Future research should compare fear appeal effectiveness in messages across vaccines or when combined with other executional elements, such as the endorser or type of evidence provided. Finally, future studies should explore other methodological approaches and measure underexplored message outcomes, such as vaccine uptake behavior, in more naturalistic settings.