College health administrator's perceptions of the impacts of COVID-19 on college immunization programs.

College immunization policies vary. To evaluate the landscape of college immunization programs, we distributed a 45-item survey to college health administrators between July and September 2021. Items measured perceptions of institutionally recommended and required vaccines, enforcement strategies, barriers to vaccine uptake, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 566 invitations sent, only 66 college health administrators completed the survey (11.7% response rate). The majority of participating institutions (89%) required at least one vaccine, with measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) being the most commonly required (83%). Geographic region, school type, or size was not significantly correlated with immunization policies but state-level political leanings were. Common barriers to vaccine program implementation identified by respondents included student-based and institutional concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic was described as both exacerbating existing immunization program barriers and providing opportunities to strengthen programs. Future work will evaluate identified themes in a larger study population and monitor change in perceptions over time.

Trusted messengers and trusted messages: The role for community-based organizations in promoting COVID-19 and routine immunizations.

We sought to explore the trust and influence community-based organizations have within the communities they serve to inform public health strategies in tailoring vaccine and other health messages. A qualitative study was conducted between March 15 - April 12, 2021 of key informants in community-based organizations serving communities in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These organizations serve communities with high Social Vulnerability Index scores. We explored four key questions including: (1) What was and continues to be the impact of COVID-19 on communities; (2) How have trust and influence been cultivated in the community; (3) Who are trusted sources of information and health messengers; and (4) What are the community's perceptions about vaccines, vaccinations, and intent to vaccinate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen key informants from nine community-based organizations who serve vulnerable populations (e.g., mental health, homeless, substance use, medically complex, food insecurity) were interviewed. Five key findings include: (1) The pandemic has exacerbated disparities in existing social determinants of health for individuals and families and have created new concerns for these communities; (2) components of how to build the trust and influence (e.g., demonstrate empathy, create a safe space, deliver on results)resonated with key informants; (3) regardless of the source, presenting health information in a respectful and understandable manner is key to effective delivery; (4) trust and influence can be transferred by association to a secondary messenger connected to or introduced by the primary trusted source; and (5) increased awareness about vaccines and vaccinations offers opportunities to think differently, changing previously held beliefs or attitudes, as many individuals are now more cognizant of risks associated with vaccine-preventable diseases and the importance of vaccines. Community-based organizations offer unique opportunities to address population-level health disparities as trusted vaccine messengers to deliver public health messages.

Persuading the "Movable Middle": Characteristics of effective messages to promote routine and COVID-19 vaccinations for adults and children - The impact of COVID-19 on beliefs and attitudes.

PURPOSE: We sought to 1) explore trusted sources for vaccine information, 2) describe persuasive characteristics of trusted messages promoting routine and COVID-19 vaccines for children and adults and 3) explore how the pandemic has impacted attitudes and beliefs about routine vaccinations. We conducted a mixed method cross-sectional study between May 3-June 14, 2021 including a survey and six focus groups among a sub-set of survey respondents. A total of 1,553 survey respondents (from which n = 33 participated in the focus groups) including adults without children under age nineteen years (n = 582) and parents with children under age nineteen years (n = 971). RESULTS: Primary care providers, family, and credible sources, characterized as known and well-established entities, were top sources of vaccine information. Neutrality, honesty, and having a trusted source to rely on in sorting through volumes of sometimes conflicting information were highly valued. Trustworthy qualities about sources included: 1) expertise, 2) fact-based, 3) unbiased, and 4) having an established process for sharing information. Because of the evolving nature of the pandemic, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine and sources of COVID-19 information differed from typical views about routine vaccines. Of 1,327 (85.4 %) survey respondents, 12.7 % and 9.4 % of adults and parents cited that the pandemic impacted their attitudes and beliefs. Among these respondents, 8 % of adults and 3 % of parents cited more favorable attitudes and beliefs about getting vaccinated with routine vaccines because of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Vaccine attitudes and beliefs which inform intent to vaccinate can change and differ among different vaccines. Messaging should be tailored to resonate with parents and adults to improve vaccine uptake.

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Outcomes with Parental Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Hesitancy Status, 2021-2022.

Despite the availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine acceptance has been low, particularly among parents. More information is needed on parental decision-making. We conducted a prospective cohort study from October 2021 to March 2022 among 334 parents in a large urban/suburban pediatric primary care network and linked longitudinal survey responses about attitudes and beliefs on vaccination, social norms, and access to vaccination services for COVID-19 to electronic health-record-derived vaccination outcomes for their eldest age-eligible children in June 2022. The odds of accepting two doses of COVID-19 vaccine for their child was higher in respondents who indicated the COVID-19 vaccine would be very safe (aOR [CI]: 2.69 [1.47−4.99], p = 0.001), as well as those who previously vaccinated their child against influenza (aOR [CI]: 4.07 [2.08−8.12], p < 0.001). The odds of vaccinating their child were lower for respondents who attended suburban vs. urban practices (aOR [CI]: 0.38 [0.21−0.67], p = 0.001). Parents in the cohort were active users of social media; the majority (78%) used their phone to check social media platforms at least once per day. Our findings suggest that healthcare providers and policymakers can focus on improving vaccination coverage among children living in suburban neighborhoods through targeted mobile-based messaging emphasizing safety to their parents.

Factors Influencing Parental and Individual COVID-19 Vaccine Decision Making in a Pediatric Network.

Aspects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed from routine vaccines, including emergency use authorizations, the prioritization of access, and the politicization of messaging. Subsequently, many parents reported lower vaccine confidence relative to routine vaccines, and vaccination coverage stalled below targets. This study aimed to understand parental vaccine decision making and compare COVID-19 versus routine vaccine decision making. We conducted nine virtual focus groups between 25 February 2022-11 March 2022 with parents (n = 41) of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's patients, recruited via email and stratified by vaccine hesitancy status (non-hesitant vs. hesitant). Transcripts were analyzed using the vaccine hesitancy matrix domains. Of 41 total participants, 25 (61.0%) were non-hesitant, 16 (39.0%) were hesitant or their children were not up-to-date on adolescent vaccines, and most self-identified as female (95.1%) and White/Caucasian (61.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and many of their first children (n = 26, 63.4%) were vaccinated against influenza. Several themes emerged regarding decision making: individual influences, group influences, vaccine and vaccine program influences, and contextual influences. While some influences were similar for routine and COVID-19 vaccine decision making (e.g., needing evidence-based information), other factors were vaccine- or situation-specific. Building trust requires a multi-faceted concerted effort that involves addressing the complex vaccine decision-making process.

Human papillomavirus: optimizing opportunities for prevention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections worldwide and is a precursor to anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. Effective prevention is available through HPV vaccination and emerging evidence demonstrates the potential to significantly impact HPV-associated disease through reductions in the incidence of genital warts, precancerous cervical lesions, and cervical cancer. Indications have also recently expanded to include the prevention of oropharyngeal cancer, an outcome that has been increasing in incidence for men and women. Yet despite demonstrated effectiveness, the potential for broader impact and well-established routine recommendations for administration to adolescents, barriers to vaccine uptake persist. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on HPV prevention in the US, including trends in disease burden, HPV vaccine effectiveness, evolving vaccine recommendations and opportunities and barriers to their implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have demonstrated that HPV vaccination has the potential to prevent most HPV-attributable cancers. Ongoing research addresses questions related to duration of protection, effectiveness in vulnerable populations, vaccine schedules and strategies to improve access and optimize uptake. SUMMARY: To ensure continued impact on the prevention of HPV-associated disease and subsequent cancer, it is crucial to address gaps in vaccine uptake. A strong recommendation for all persons for whom HPV vaccines are indicated, alongside initiatives to increase awareness of HPV vaccination and address specific concerns, can improve uptake among hesitant populations. Globally, efforts to bolster immunization programs are needed to broaden access to HPV vaccination.

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.

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.

Association Between HIV-Related Tweets and HIV Incidence in the United States: Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults in the age range of 13-24 years are at the highest risk of developing HIV infections. As social media platforms are extremely popular among youths, researchers can utilize these platforms to curb the HIV epidemic by investigating the associations between the discourses on HIV infections and the epidemiological data of HIV infections. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine how Twitter activity among young men is related to the incidence of HIV infection in the population. METHODS: We used integrated human-computer techniques to characterize the HIV-related tweets by male adolescents and young male adults (age range: 13-24 years). We identified tweets related to HIV risk and prevention by using natural language processing (NLP). Our NLP algorithm identified 89.1% (2243/2517) relevant tweets, which were manually coded by expert coders. We coded 1577 HIV-prevention tweets and 17.5% (940/5372) of general sex-related tweets (including emojis, gifs, and images), and we achieved reliability with intraclass correlation at 0.80 or higher on key constructs. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the spatial patterns in posting HIV-related tweets as well as the relationships between the tweets and local HIV infection rates. RESULTS: We analyzed 2517 tweets that were identified as relevant to HIV risk and prevention tags; these tweets were geolocated in 109 counties throughout the United States. After adjusting for region, HIV prevalence, and social disadvantage index, our findings indicated that every 100-tweet increase in HIV-specific tweets per capita from noninstitutional accounts was associated with a multiplicative effect of 0.97 (95% CI [0.94-1.00]; P=.04) on the incidence of HIV infections in the following year in a given county. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter may serve as a proxy of public behavior related to HIV infections, and the association between the number of HIV-related tweets and HIV infection rates further supports the use of social media for HIV disease prevention.