Population Attributable Fraction of Nonvaccination of COVID-19 Due to Vaccine Hesitancy, United States, 2021.

Understanding the extent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nonvaccination attributable to vaccine hesitancy versus other barriers can help prioritize approaches for increasing vaccination uptake. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Research and Development Survey, a nationally representative survey fielded from May 1 to June 30, 2021 (n = 5,458), we examined the adjusted population attribution fraction (PAF) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy attributed to nonvaccination according to sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables. Overall, the adjusted PAF of nonvaccination attributed to vaccine hesitancy was 76.1%. The PAF was highest among adults who were ≥50 years of age (87.9%), were non-Hispanic White (83.7%), had a bachelor's degree or higher (82.7%), had an annual household income of at least $75,000 (85.5%), were insured (82.4%), and had a usual place for health care (80.7%). The PAF was lower for those who were current smokers (65.3%) compared with never smokers (77.9%), those who had anxiety or depression (65.2%) compared with those who did not (80.1%), and those who had a disability (64.5%) compared with those who did not (79.2%). Disparities in PAF suggest areas for prioritization of efforts for intervention and development of messaging campaigns that address all barriers to uptake, including hesitancy and access, to advance health equity and protect individuals from COVID-19.

Dynamic evolution of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy over 2021-2023 among Chinese population: Repeated nationwide cross-sectional study.

Globally, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccine had been faced with a significant barrier in the form of vaccine hesitancy. This study adopts a multi-stage perspective to explore the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, focusing on their dynamic evolutionary features. Guided by the integrated framework of the 3Cs model (complacency, confidence, and convenience) and the EAH model (environmental, agent, and host), this study conducted three repeated national cross-sectional surveys. These surveys carried out from July 2021 to February 2023 across mainland China, targeted individuals aged 18 and older. They were strategically timed to coincide with three critical vaccination phases: universal coverage (stage 1), partial coverage (stage 2), and key population coverage (stage 3). From 2021 to 2023, the surveys examined sample sizes of 29 925, 6659, and 5407, respectively. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitation rates increased from 8.39% in 2021 to 29.72% in 2023. Urban residency, chronic condition, and low trust in vaccine developer contributed to significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy across the pandemic. Negative correlations between the intensity of vaccination policies and vaccine hesitancy, and positive correlations between vaccine hesitancy and long COVID, were confirmed. This study provides insights for designing future effective vaccination programs for emerging vaccine-preventable infectious X diseases.

Hesitancy towards R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine among Ghanaian parents and attitudes towards immunizing non-eligible children: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The newly developed malaria vaccine called "R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine" showed a high safety and efficacy level, and Ghana is the first country to approve this new vaccine. The present study aimed to evaluate the rate of vaccine hesitancy (VH) towards the newly developed malaria vaccine among parents who currently have children who are not eligible for the vaccine but may be eligible in the near future. Additionally, the study aimed to identify the factors that could potentially influence VH. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using both online-based questionnaires and face-to-face interviews was conducted in Ghana from June to August 2023. The survey specifically targeted parents of ineligible children for vaccination, including those aged less than 5 months or between 3 and 12 years. The Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccination (PACV) scale was used to assess parental VH. RESULTS: A total of 765 people participated in this study. Their median age was 36.0 years with an interquartile range of 31.0-41.0 years, 67.7% were females, 41.8% completed their tertiary education, 63.3% were married, 81.6% worked in non-healthcare sectors, and 59.7% reported that their monthly income was insufficient. About one-third (34.5%) of the parents were hesitant to give their children the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. The following predictors were associated with VH: working in the healthcare sector (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.80; p = 0.005), having the other parent working in the healthcare sector (AOR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.94; p = 0.034), and not taking scheduled routine vaccinations (AOR = 1.90; 95% CI 1.27-2.84; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing VH is crucial for optimizing R21/Matrix-M vaccine coverage in Ghana's malaria control strategy. By tackling VH issues, Ghana can effectively safeguard children's health in malaria-prone areas.

Expectations Versus Fantasies and Vaccine Hesitancy: How Suffering From COVID-19 Versus Suffering From Vaccines Interact.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on COVID-19 vaccination highlights future thoughts associated with possible Coronavirus infection and vaccine side effects as key predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Yet, research has focused on independent contributions of such future thoughts, neglecting their interactive aspects. PURPOSE: We examined whether thoughts about two possible COVID-related futures (suffering from COVID-19 and vaccine side effects) interactively predict vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior among unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Importantly, we compared two forms of future thinking: beliefs or expectations (likelihood judgments) versus fantasies (free thoughts and images describing future events). METHODS: In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal study with an unvaccinated group (N = 210). We assessed expectations versus fantasies about the two COVID-related futures as predictors. As outcome variables, we measured vaccine hesitancy, and 9 weeks later we assessed information seeking and vaccine uptake. Study 2 was a cross-sectional study comparing vaccine hesitancy of an unvaccinated group (N = 307) to that of a vaccinated group (N = 311). RESULTS: Study 1 found that more negative fantasies about COVID-19 impact and less negative fantasies about vaccine side effects interactively predicted lower vaccine hesitancy and more vaccine-related behaviors among unvaccinated people; no such interaction was observed between respective expectations. Study 2 replicated these results of Study 1. Additionally, for vaccinated people, low expectations of negative COVID-19 impact and high expectations of negative vaccine impact interactively predicted higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas no such interaction was observed for respective fantasies. CONCLUSIONS: Research on vaccine hesitancy should explore interactions between future thinking about disease and about vaccine side effects. Importantly, there is much to be gained by distinguishing expectations versus fantasies: vaccination interventions aiming to boost vaccine uptake among unvaccinated people should tap into their negative future fantasies regarding both disease and vaccine side effects.

In two correlational studies, we investigated the relationship between future thoughts about two possible COVID-related futures­suffering from COVID-19 and vaccine side effects­and vaccine hesitancy. Prior research has emphasized thoughts about these potential risks as significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy but has focused on their independent contributions, neglecting their interactive nature. Our research examined the interaction between the thoughts about disease and those about vaccine side effects, highlighting the two forms of future thinking: expectations (likelihood judgments) and fantasies (free-flowing thoughts and images describing a future event). In a longitudinal study (Study 1) with an unvaccinated group, we found that more negative fantasies about COVID-19 disease and less negative fantasies about vaccine side effects interactively predicted lower vaccine hesitancy and more vaccination behavior. There was no interaction between the expectations. Study 2, a cross-sectional study comparing another unvaccinated sample to a vaccinated sample, revealed a divergent pattern in the two groups; negative fantasies, not expectations, interactively predicted vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated people while expectations, not fantasies, did so among vaccinated people. The research suggests the importance of considering interactions between future thoughts about disease and vaccine side effects in understanding vaccine hesitancy and distinguishing expectations and fantasies.

Trends in primary, booster, and updated COVID-19 vaccine readiness in the United States, January 2021-April 2023: Implications for 2023-2024 updated COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 vaccines have mitigated the severity of COVID-19 and its sequelae. The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and waning immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccination have necessitated booster and updated COVID-19 vaccines. This study examined trends in vaccine readiness-a composite measure of intention and uptake-for the primary, booster, and 2022-2023 updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines among U.S. adults. METHODS: Data from the nationally-representative U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' COVID-19 Monthly Outcome Survey from January 2021 to April 2023 were analyzed (N = 140,180). We conducted pairwise comparisons (weighted t-tests) to assess for significant between-month differences in the proportion of participants in each vaccine-readiness category (vaccine ready, wait and see, and no vaccine intention) for the following outcomes: (1) primary; (2) booster; and (3) updated COVID-19 vaccine readiness. RESULTS: From January 2021 to April 2023, significant increases in the primary vaccine ready group were accompanied by decreases in the wait and see and no vaccine intention groups (p < 0.001). From January to September 2022, the no booster intention group notably increased (p < 0.001), whereas the booster ready group decreased (p < 0.001), and the wait and see group remained stable (p = 0.116). From October 2022 to April 2023, the no updated vaccine intention group increased (p < 0.001), the wait and see group decreased (p < 0.01), and the updated vaccine ready group remained unchanged (p = 0.357). CONCLUSIONS: Findings show decreased vaccine readiness for the booster and 2022-2023 updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines relative to the primary COVID-19 vaccines. Implications for the 2023-2024 updated COVID-19 vaccines are discussed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 threats to global health, which affects the prevalence and fatality of vaccine-preventable diseases over the world. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people living with HIV (PLWH) may have higher risks of infection, more serious complications, and worse prognosis without the protection of the COVID-19 vaccine. A systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLWH was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022. The pooled prevalence with a corresponding 95%CI of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLWH was reported. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore variation in prevalence across different categories. 23 studies with a total of 19,922 PLWH were included in this study. The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLWH was 34.0%, and the influencing factors included male, influenza vaccination experience, and a CD4 count of more than 200 cells/mm3. Subgroup analysis did not identify significant causes of heterogeneity but showed that the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLWH varies by study period, region, and race. Although all PLWH are recommended to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, a large proportion of them remain hesitant to be vaccinated. Therefore, governments and relevant institutions should take specific measures to encourage and promote vaccination to improve the coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine among PLWH.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among People Living with HIV: Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aims to estimate the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among people living with HIV (PLWHA). A search for observational studies was conducted in five databases and preprinted literature. Summary estimates were pooled using a random effects model and meta-regression. Of 150 identified studies, 31 were eligible (18,550 PLWHA). The weighted prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy overall was 29.07% among PLWHA (95%CI = 24.33-34.32; I² = 98%,) and that of vaccine acceptance was 68.66% (95%CI = 62.25-74.43; I² = 98%). Higher hesitancy prevalence was identified in low/lower-middle income countries (35.05; 95% CI = 19.38-54.78). The heterogeneity was explained by the risk of bias, region, and year of data collection. The findings conclude that the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate remains high, especially in low-income countries. Evidence-informed interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance at the national and individual levels ought to be designed to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among PLWHA.

Herpes zoster (HZ) vaccine coverage and confidence in Italy: a Nationwide cross-sectional study, the OBVIOUS project.

BACKGROUND: Herpes Zoster is an age dependent disease and as such it represents a problem in the Italian social context, where the demographic curve is characterized by an overrepresentation of the elderly population. Vaccines against Herpes Zoster are available, safe and effective, however coverage remains sub-optimal. This study was therefore conducted to examine the variations in Herpes Zoster vaccine uptake and confidence across different regions in Italy. METHODS: This study utilized a cross-sectional computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) methodology. The survey was conducted by Dynata, an online panel provider, and involved 10,000 respondents recruited in Italy between April 11 and May 29, 2022. The sample was stratified based on geographic region, gender, and age group. Data management adhered to European Union data protection regulations, and the survey covered demographics, living conditions, and vaccination against herpes zoster (HZ), following the BeSD framework. RESULTS: The findings indicate regional disparities in herpes zoster vaccine uptake across Italy. Notably, the Islands region exhibits a particularly low vaccination rate (2.9%), highlighting the need for targeted interventions. The multivariate regression analysis showed that sociodemographic factors, limited access to healthcare services, and inadequate awareness of vaccine eligibility contribute to the lower uptake observed in this region. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this research emphasizes regional disparities in herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination uptake in Italy. Demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors impact individuals' willingness to receive the vaccine. The study highlights the importance of awareness of vaccine eligibility and accessible vaccination facilities in increasing uptake rates.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake: an online three-wave survey study of US adults.

BACKGROUND: To effectively promote vaccine uptake, it is important to understand which people are most and least inclined to be vaccinated and why. In this study, we examined predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for non-vaccination. METHODS: We conducted an online English-language survey study in December-2020, January-2021, and March-2021. A total of 930 US respondents completed all surveys. Multiple logistic regression models were run to test whether the early vaccine eligibility, demographic factors, and psychological factors predict getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination in January-2021 and in March-2021. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents who received ≥ 1-dose of a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 18% (January) to 67% (March). Older age predicted vaccine uptake in January (OR = 2.02[95%CI = 1.14-3.78], p < .001) and March (10.92[6.76-18.05], p < .001). In January, additional predictors were higher numeracy (1.48[1.20-1.86], p < .001), COVID-19 risk perceptions (1.35[1.03-1.78], p = .029), and believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.66[1.05-2.66], p = .033). In March, additional predictors of uptake were believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.63[1.15-2.34], p = .006), prior COVID-19 vaccine intentions (1.37[1.10-1.72], p = .006), and belief in science (0.84[0.72-0.99], p = .041). Concerns about side effects and the development process were the most common reasons for non-vaccination. Unvaccinated respondents with no interest in getting a COVID-19 vaccine were younger (0.27[0.09-0.77], p = .016), held negative views about COVID-19 vaccines for adults (0.15[0.08-0.26], p < .001), had lower trust in healthcare (0.59[0.36-0.95], p = .032), and preferred to watch and wait in clinically ambiguous medical situations (0.66[0.48-0.89], p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines were important predictors of uptake provides validation for studies using these measures and reinforces the need to develop strategies for addressing safety and development concerns which remain at the forefront of vaccine hesitancy.

Barriers to vaccine acceptance in the adult population of mainland Finland, 2021.

There has been a lack of information on vaccine acceptance for Finnish adults. We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected through the Finnish Medicines Agency Medicine Barometer 2021 survey (response rate: 20.6%). We described and explained vaccine acceptance by investigating the associations between socio-demographic factors and statements using logistic regression and conducted a factor analysis. The majority of respondents (n = 2081) considered vaccines to be safe (93%), effective (97%), and important (95%). However, 20% and 14% felt they did not have enough information about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), respectively. Respondents aged 18-39 were 2.8 times more likely to disagree that they had enough information about VPDs compared to respondents aged 60-79 (p < 0.001), while respondents with poorer self-perceived health were 1.8 times more likely to declare not having enough information about vaccines (p < 0.001). We generated three-factor dimensions from the eight statements. They were related to 'Confidence and attitudes towards vaccines', 'Access to information on vaccines and VPDs', and 'Debate on vaccine issues', which may reflect the underlying thinking patterns. Access to and understanding of information about vaccines and VPDs need to be improved for Finnish adults to increase vaccine acceptance and uptake, thus preventing the spread of VPDs.

Information and vaccine hesitancy: The role of broadband Internet.

We examine the effect of Internet diffusion on the uptake of an important public health intervention: the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. We study England between 2000 and 2011 when Internet diffusion spread rapidly and there was a high profile medical article (falsely) linking the MMR vaccine to autism. OLS estimates suggest Internet diffusion led to an increase in vaccination rates. This result is reversed after allowing for endogeneity of Internet access. The effect of Internet diffusion is sizable. A one standard deviation increase in Internet penetration led to around a 20% decrease in vaccination rates. Localities characterized by higher proportions of high skilled individuals and lower deprivation levels had a larger response to Internet diffusion. These findings are consistent with higher skilled and less-deprived parents responding faster to false information that the vaccine could lead to autism.

Vaccine-skeptic physicians and patient vaccination decisions.

What is the role of general practitioners (GPs) in supporting or hindering public health efforts? We investigate the influence of vaccine-skeptic GPs on their patients' decisions to get a COVID-19 vaccination. We identify vaccine-skeptic GPs from the signatories of an open letter in which 199 Austrian physicians expressed their skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines. We examine small rural municipalities where patients choose a GP primarily based on geographic proximity. These vaccine-skeptic GPs reduced the vaccination rate by 5.6 percentage points. This estimate implies that they discouraged 7.9% of the vaccinable population. The effect appears to stem from discouragement rather than rationing vaccine access.

Let's call! Using the phone to increase vaccine acceptance.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we develop and test experimentally three phone-based interventions to increase vaccine acceptance in Mozambique. The first endorses the vaccine with a simple positive message. The second adds the activation of social memory on the country's success in eradicating wild polio with vaccination campaigns. The third further adds a structured interaction with the participant to develop a critical view toward misleading information and minimize the sharing of fake news. We find that combining the endorsement with the stimulation of social memory and the structured interaction increases vaccine acceptance and trust in institutions.

Impact of early preeclampsia prediction on medication adherence and behavior change: a survey of pregnant and recently-delivered individuals.

BACKGROUND: Behavior change and medication adherence represent potential barriers to optimal prevention of pregnancy complications including preeclampsia. We sought to evaluate baseline sentiments on pregnancy care and medication amenability, and how these measures would be impacted by early predictive testing for preeclampsia. METHODS: We developed a digital survey to query participants' baseline sentiments on pregnancy care, knowledge about pregnancy complications, and views on a hypothetical test to predict preeclampsia. The survey was administered online to pregnant and recently-delivered individuals in the United States. Survey data were analyzed using pooled two-sample proportion z-tests with adjustment for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: One thousand and twenty-two people completed the survey. 84% reported they were satisfied with their pregnancy care. Self-assessed knowledge about preeclampsia was high, with 75% of respondents reporting they have a "good understanding" of preeclampsia, but measured knowledge was low, with only 10% able to identify five common signs/symptoms of preeclampsia. Notably, 40% of participants with prior preeclampsia believed they were at average or below-average risk for recurrence. 91% of participants desired early pregnancy predictive testing for preeclampsia. If found to be at high risk for preeclampsia, 88% reported they would be more motivated to follow their provider's medication recommendations and 94% reported they would desire home blood pressure monitoring. Increased motivation to follow clinicians' medication and monitoring recommendations was observed across the full spectrum of medication amenability. Individuals who are more medication-hesitant still reported high rates of motivation to change behavior and adhere to medication recommendations if predictive testing showed a high risk of preeclampsia. Importantly, a high proportion of medication-hesitant individuals reported that if a predictive test demonstrated they were at high risk of preeclampsia, they would feel more motivated to take medications (83.0%) and aspirin (75.9%) if recommended. CONCLUSION: While satisfaction with care is high, participants desire more information about their pregnancy health, would value predictive testing for preeclampsia, and report they would act on this information. Improved detection of at-risk individuals through objective testing combined with increased adherence to their recommended care plan may be an important step to remedy the growing gap in prevention.

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.

Willingness and hesitancy towards the governmental free human papillomavirus vaccination among parents of eligible adolescent girls in Shenzhen, Southern China.

BACKGROUND: Since 2020, China has actively promoted HPV vaccination for eligible adolescent girls through various pilot programmes. This study investigated parental willingness and hesitancy towards the government-sponsored, free human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for eligible adolescent girls in Shenzhen, Southern China. METHODS: From June to August 2022, a cross-sectional survey was conducted with parents of girls entering Grade 7, employing an adapted Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to assess vaccine hesitancy and logistic regression to identify factors influencing willingness to accept the free domestic vaccines. RESULTS: Although only 3.4% of the 2856 respondents had their daughters vaccinated against HPV prior to the survey, 91.7% were willing to utilise the governmental vaccination services. Parents with children in public schools (χ2 = 20.08, p < 0.001), those with more secure medical insurance (χ2 = 4.97, p = 0.026), and parents who had received an HPV vaccine themselves (χ2 = 28.829, p < 0.001) showed more reluctance towards the free vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy was presented in a mere 2.1% but was a significant predictor of vaccine refusal, even after adjusting for multiple factors (adjusted OR = 15.98, 95% CI: 9.06, 28.20). Notably, about four-fifths of parents of unvaccinated daughters harboured concerns about the safety and efficacy of the domestic vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents show a strong inclination to utilise the government vaccination services, their vaccine hesitancy, driven by safety concerns and a preference for imported vaccines, remains a significant barrier for rolling out vaccination coverage. This study highlights the need for multifaceted intervention strategies that address these issues to enhance HPV vaccine uptake effectively.

Concerns about vaccines and vaccination behavior among Japanese budget travelers to India.

BACKGROUND: Low vaccination coverage among travelers poses a critical challenge to global health security. Indeed, public concerns regarding vaccines can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, but evidence about the impacts of concerns regarding vaccines on the uptake of travel vaccinations remains sparse. We examined the associations between concerns about vaccines and vaccination behavior among travelers. METHODS: Japanese travelers aged 18 years or older, who stayed at a guesthouse in New Delhi, India, were targeted (n = 153). We conducted cross-sectional surveys from August 23 to September 2, 2019, and from February 19 to March 5, 2020. We examined the associations of three concerns regarding vaccines (5-point scale)-serious side effects from vaccines, vaccine safety, and vaccine effectiveness-with the uptake of travel vaccinations. RESULTS: In total, 60 participants (39.2 %) had been vaccinated for this or a past trip. After adjusting for all potential confounding variables, concerns about serious side effects from vaccines and vaccine safety were negatively associated with the uptake of travel vaccinations. The ORs (95 % CIs) for 1-point increases in concerns about serious side effects from vaccines and vaccine safety were 0.72 (0.52, 0.99) and 0.71 (0.52, 0.96), respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not change the results substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns about vaccine safety issues were negatively associated with the uptake of travel vaccinations among the participants, with no corresponding association observed for vaccine effectiveness. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety issues, rather than vaccine effectiveness may contribute to an increased uptake of travel vaccinations.

Uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in relation to preexisting chronic conditions in the European countries.

BACKGROUND: The suboptimal uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines among those with non-communicable chronic diseases is a public health concern, because it poses a higher risk of severe illness for individuals with underlying health conditions, emphasizing the need to address barriers to vaccination and ensure adequate protection for this vulnerable population. In the present study, we aimed to identify whether people with chronic illnesses are more likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza in the European Union. METHODS: Cross-sectional data on 49,253 men (n = 20,569) and women (n = 28,684) were obtained from the ninth round of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (June - August, 2021). The outcome variables were self-reported COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake status. The association between the uptake of the vaccines and six preexisting conditions including high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, chronic lung disease, diabetes, chronic bronchitis, and asthma was estimated using binary logistic regression methods. RESULTS: The vaccination coverage for COVID-19 ranged from close to 100% in Denmark (98.2%) and Malta (98.2%) to less than 50% in Bulgaria (19.1%) and Romania (32.7%). The countries with the highest percentage of participants with the influenza vaccine included Malta (66.7%), Spain (63.7%) and the Netherlands (62.5%), and those with the lowest percentage included Bulgaria (3.7%), Slovakia (5.8%) and Poland (9.2%). Participants with high blood pressure were 3% less likely [Risk difference (RD) = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.04, -0.03] to report taking COVID-19 and influenza [RD = -0.03, 95% CI= -0.04, -0.01] vaccine. Those with chronic lung disease were 4% less likely [RD = -0.04, 95% CI= -0.06, -0.03] to report taking COVID-19 and 2% less likely [RD= -0.02, 95% CI = -0.04, -0.01] to report taking influenza vaccine. Men and women with high blood pressure were 3% less likely to have reported taking both of the vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings indicate a suboptimal uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines among adult men and women in the EU countries. Those with preexisting conditions, including high blood pressure and chronic lung disease are less likely to take the vaccines.

Which factors drive the choice of the French-speaking Quebec population towards a COVID-19 vaccination programme: A discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to elicit preferences about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine campaign in the general French-speaking adult Quebec population and to highlight the characteristics of the vaccine campaign that were of major importance. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted between April and June 2021, in Quebec, Canada. A quota sampling method by age, gender and educational level was used to achieve a representative sample of the French-speaking adult population. The choice-based exercise was described by seven attributes within a vaccine campaign scenario. A mixed logit (MXL) model and a latent class logit (LCL) model were used to derive utility values. Age, gender, educational level, income and fear of COVID-19 were included as independent variables in the LCL. RESULTS: A total of 1883 respondents were included for analysis, yielding 22,586 choices. From these choices, 3425 (15.16%) were refusals. In addition, 1159 (61.55%) individuals always accepted any of the vaccination campaigns, while 92 individuals (4.89%) always refused vaccine alternatives. According to the MXL, relative weight importance of attributes was effectiveness (32.50%), risk of side effects (24.76%), level of scientific evidence (22.51%), number of shots (15.73%), priority population (3.60%), type of vaccine (0.61%), and vaccination location (0.28%). Four classes were derived from the LCL model and attributes were more or less important according to them. Class 1 (19.8%) was more concerned about the effectiveness (27.99%), safety (24.22%) and the number of shots (21.82%), class 2 (55.3%) wanted a highly effective vaccine (40.16%) and class 3 (17.6%) gave high value to the scientific evidence (42.00%). Class 4 preferences (7.4%) were more balanced, with each attribute having a relative weight ranging from 1.84% (type of vaccine) to 21.32% (risk of side effects). Membership posterior probabilities to latent classes were found to be predicted by individual factors such as gender, annual income or fear of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination acceptance relies on multiple factors. This study allowed assessment of vaccination-specific issues through a choice-based exercise and description of factors influencing this choice by segmenting the sample and drawing profiles of individuals. Moreover, besides effectiveness and safety, a major point of this study was to show the importance given by the general population to the level of scientific evidence surrounding vaccines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A small group of citizens was involved in the conception, design and interpretation of data. Participants of the DCE were all from the general population.

The experience of traumatic events, psychological distress, and social support: links to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and trends with age in a group of older Australians.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is important to reduce disease-associated morbidity and mortality in an ageing global population. While older adults are more likely than younger adults to accept vaccines, some remain hesitant. We sought to understand how traumatic events, psychological distress and social support contribute to older adults' intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and whether these experiences change with age. METHODS: We analysed survey data collected as part of the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study in a population of Australian adults aged 60 years and over. Data were derived from the COVID Insights study; a series of supplementary surveys about how participants experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Higher intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with greater social support (adjusted odds ratio (aOR):1.08; 95%CI:1.06-1.11; p <.001) while lower intention was associated with personally experiencing a serious illness, injury or assault in the last 12 months (aOR:0.79; 95% CI:0.64-0.98; p =.03). Social support and the experience of traumatic events increased significantly with age, while psychological distress decreased. CONCLUSIONS: There may be factors beyond disease-associated risks that play a role in vaccine acceptance with age. Older Australians on the younger end of the age spectrum may have specific needs to address their hesitancy that may be overlooked.