Factors associated with vaccination intention and uptake over time in a sample of older Australians.

This study sought to identify the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination in 16,745 older Australians. We analysed and compared influences on COVID-19 vaccination intention and uptake using prospectively collected survey data from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study. Vaccination intention increased with older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]:1.03; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.04; p = .002), a belief that the vaccine is important for the person's own health (aOR: 5.17; 95 % CI: 4.23-6.24; p < .001), is safe (aOR:2.64; 95 % CI: 2.19-3.2; p < .001), and trusted by the person (aOR:6.79; 95 % CI: 5.59-8.26 p < .001); concern about contracting COVID-19 (aOR:1.78; 95 % CI: 1.47-2.17; p < .001); having enough information about COVID-19 vaccines (aOR:1.99; 95 % CI: 1.65-2.29; p < .001); a belief that most adults will receive a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR:2.31; 95 % CI: 1.93-2.77; p < .001); and a belief that family and friends wanted the person to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR:6.07; 95 % CI: 5.06-7.27; p < .001). The same factors contributed to increased vaccine uptake, with the exception of age and the belief that the person had enough information about the vaccine. Concern that the vaccine will cause a serious reaction was associated with both lower intention (aOR:0.35; 95 % CI: 0.29-0.43; p < .001) and lower uptake (aOR:0.61; 95 % CI: 0.46-0.81; p < .001) while lower intention was also associated with low decisional autonomy (aOR:0.37; 95 % CI: 0.22-0.62; p < .001). Intentions changed over time and a change towards vaccination was associated with perceptions of vaccine safety. Access barriers played a role in the non-vaccination of otherwise intending older Australians. Messaging that is adaptive to safety concerns, emphasises vaccine benefits, leverages social norms, and targets people who make decisions for older Australians may be helpful for influencing vaccination intentions and increasing vaccine uptake.

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.

Childhood vaccine refusal and what to do about it: a systematic review of the ethical literature.

BACKGROUND: Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature. METHODS: Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: (1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled 'refusal arguments'); and (2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable ('response arguments'). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent's will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

Association between traumatic life events and vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional Australian study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify associations between the experience of traumatic life events and vaccination intention to inform whether trauma-affected individuals require targeted interventions when addressing vaccine hesitancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey to identify whether direct or indirect exposure to various traumatic life events and the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in an Australian sample. METHODS: A national online questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of 1050 Australian adults in September 2021. RESULTS: Lower willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with direct experience of a fire or explosion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.78; P = 0.006), direct experience of severe human suffering (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.21-0.71; P = 0.002) and screening positive for PTSD symptoms (aOR:0.52; 95% CI: 0.33-0.82; P = 0.005). Conversely, higher willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with indirect exposure to severe human suffering (aOR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.21-3.22; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the experience of traumatic events and the presence of PTSD symptoms can contribute to vaccination decisions. Our work adds to the growing recognition of the need to effectively mediate the influence of traumatic experiences on encounters within the medical setting and supports the importance of addressing the needs of trauma-affected individuals in their vaccination experiences.

Willingness to receive a vaccine is influenced by adverse events following immunisation experienced by others.

An adverse event following immunization (AEFI) can have consequences for an individual's future decision making and may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. AEFIs vary in severity and can be experienced directly (by an individual themselves) or indirectly (through witnessed or recounted events). We sought to measure the prevalence of specific AEFIs and understand which AEFIs have the greatest associations with reduced willingness to receive a vaccine and how injection anxiety may moderate the relationship. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements in a sample of adults aged 18 years and over in Australia. Nineteen percent of the 1050 respondents reported experiencing an AEFI that they found stressful. Those who experienced an AEFI reported significantly higher levels of injection anxiety than those who did not. Within the group who reported experiencing an AEFI, respondents were significantly less likely to be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if they reported: indirect exposure to an uncommon/rare AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.87); indirect exposure to a scientifically unsupported AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57). Direct exposure to an AEFI was not associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For those who reported experiencing an AEFI, the odds of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine decreased significantly with an increase in injection anxiety (aOR:0.94; 95% CI: 0.9-0.98). Our results suggest that more is needed to mitigate the consequences of AEFIs on vaccine willingness. Empathically acknowledging at a community level, the experience of both real and perceived AEFIs and incorporating accounts of positive vaccination experiences in vaccine hesitancy interventions may be useful.

Traumatic Events and Vaccination Decisions: A Systematic Review.

Despite the apparent relationship between past experiences and subsequent vaccination decisions, the role of traumatic events has been overlooked when understanding vaccination intention and behaviour. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize what is known about the relationship between traumatic events and subsequent vaccination decisions. MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINHAL electronic databases were searched, and 1551 articles were screened for eligibility. Of the 52 articles included in full-text assessment, five met the eligibility criteria. Findings suggest that the experience of trauma is associated with individual vaccination decisions. Social and practical factors related to both trauma and vaccination may mediate this relationship. As this is a relatively new field of inquiry, future research may help to clarify the nuances of the relationship. This review finds that the experience of psychological trauma is associated with vaccination intention and behaviour and points to the potential importance of a trauma-informed approach to vaccination interventions during the current global effort to achieve high COVID-19 vaccine coverage.