Factors associated with intention to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 booster dose: a cross-sectional study in Peru.

Introduction: The pandemic of COVID-19 continues to impact people worldwide, with more than 755 million confirmed cases and more than 6.8 million reported deaths. Although two types of treatment, antiviral and immunomodulatory therapy, have been approved to date, vaccination has been the best method to control the spread of the disease. Objective: To explore factors associated with the intention to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 booster dose in Peru. Material and Methods: Cross-sectional study, using virtual and physical surveys of adults with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, where the dependent variable was the intention to be vaccinated (IBV) with the booster dose. We calculated prevalence ratios with 95% confidence intervals, using generalized linear models of the Poisson family with robust varying, determining associations between sociodemographic, clinical, and booster dose perception variables. Results: Data from 924 adults were analyzed. The IBV of the booster doses was 88.1%. A higher prevalence was associated with being male (aPR = 1.05; 95% CI [1.01-1.10]), having a good perception of efficacy and protective effect (PR = 3.69; 95% CI [2.57-5.30]) and belonging to the health sector (PR = 1.10; 95% CI [1.04-1.16]). There was greater acceptance of the recommendation of physicians and other health professionals (aPR = 1.40; 95% CI [1.27-1.55]). Conclusions: Factors associated with higher IBV with booster dose include male gender, health sciences, physician recommendation, and good perception of efficacy.

Highly Educated Mother's Perception of Childhood Vaccination Hesitancy in Kazakhstan: A Thematic Analysis.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy among parents directly affects the child's vaccination status since they are the legal decision-makers regarding vaccinating their children. The study aimed to describe the perceptions of highly educated Kazakhstani mothers about childhood vaccination hesitancy. Methods: The study utilized a thematic analysis to explore the mothers' perceptions. A sample of 95 participants comprehensively answered the free-text questions in an online questionnaire from January to February 2023. The analysis of the free-text responses followed a semantic thematic analysis approach. The data were coded manually. Results: From the in-depth analysis of the data, 285 initial codes were extracted. The combination of similar meanings and concept codes led to 14 sub-themes and finally yielded four significant themes: misconceptions about childhood vaccination, fear of the effect of vaccine on children, distrust of the healthcare system, and social learning factors. Conclusion: The perceptions of Kazakh mothers about childhood vaccination hesitancy may lead to behaviors of delaying and refusing some or all childhood vaccines. Therefore, motivational and educational strategies can be used by healthcare providers to instill trust in parents about childhood vaccines and their safety and effectiveness.

Perceived impact of discussions with a healthcare professional on patients' decision regarding COVID-19 vaccine.

There is evidence that advice from Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) plays an important role in patients' decision to get vaccinated, but the extent to which patients perceive this impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived impact of a discussion with a HCP on participants' decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults who consulted a general practitioner (GP) or a pharmacist in Ile-de-France, France, after COVID-19 vaccines became available (October-November 2021 period). A total of 344 participants were included, 65.2% of whom reported having had a discussion about COVID-19 vaccines with a HCP. Overall, 55% of participants were advised to be vaccinated by their HCP. Most of the discussions took place with a GP (n = 203, 48.9%). According to 52.5% of participants, the discussion had a positive impact, i.e. it was perceived as encouraging vaccination. The latter reported that, among HCPs, GPs had the greatest number of discussions with a positive impact on the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (93.1%). In the study population, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate, according to the WHO definition, was high (38.1%), although the COVID-19 vaccine coverage rate was 87.1%. Vaccine hesitant participants were more likely to report a discussion that had a perceived negative impact on their decision to get vaccinated (20.0%) than non-hesitant participants (5.8%, p = .004).

Barriers and facilitators to the HPV vaccine: a multicenter qualitative study of French general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: In France, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage is low, with 30.7% of 17-year-old girls having received a complete HPV vaccination schedule in 2020. AIM: To determine the perspective and behaviors of general practitioners (GPs) regarding HPV vaccination with their patients and if a reluctance is observed. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study based on semi-directed individual interviews was conducted between December 2019 and December 2020. A representative sample of GPs with various profiles were included in 4 French regions. METHOD: A purposive sampling was used and interviews were continued until data saturation was reached. The analysis was based on the grounded theory. RESULTS: Twenty-six GPs aged 29-66 years were interviewed. The measures taken by the French health authorities (lowering the target age, reimbursing the vaccine, extending the target population to boys) were perceived as facilitators. The reported barriers were organizational, due to low attendance of adolescents, and relational, mainly due to parental vaccine hesitancy. Physicians had to deal with fears about the perceived risks and concerns about sexuality conveyed by HPV vaccination and linked to the socio-cultural characteristics of the families. Physicians developed strategies, including scientific knowledge mobilization, empowerment of families by promoting health through prevention, repetition of the vaccination proposals, personal experience and relationship. Different practices were identified according to three GP typologies: effective, convinced but unpersuasive, and reluctant physicians. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, specific interventions, including communication techniques, especially for hesitant or unpersuasive physicians, are needed to enable GPs to become more effective.

A study of health literacy and social media use of the students on vaccine preferences during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey.

Background: It is unknown if health-care literacy and social media use of the students affect vaccine preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: The aim of the present research was to detect whether health-care literacy and social media use of the students affect vaccine preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: The universe of the sample consisted of the students of a university in Mus Alparslan University. The sample of the research included students whose last digit of the school number is an odd number. Four hundred and twenty students participated into the study. The data of the study were collected through the "Sociodemographic Characteristics Questionnaire," "Health Literacy Scale (HLS)," and "Social Media Usage Scale (SMUS)." Results: The total score average of the students on the "HLS" was 42.74 ± 13.85 and the "SMUS" was 21.30 ± 7.38. It was determined that those who have preferred the "Sinovac" vaccine had higher score averages on the "Information Understanding Subdimension" and "HLS" than those who have preferred the Türkovac vaccine. Furthermore, it was determined that the score average of "Continuity Subdimension," "Competency Subdimension" and "Social Media Use Scale" were higher, and these differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: It was detected that the health literacy (HL) levels of the students were lower and they do not use social media competently. On the other hand, it was determined that social media use and HL affect the vaccine preferences.

Psychological and Social Aspects of Vaccination Hesitancy-Implications for Travel Medicine in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Crisis: A Narrative Review.

Vaccines are an important tool of preventive medicine. Although organized vaccination programs have saved large populations from serious infectious diseases, there is a considerable part of the population who oppose vaccinations. In particular, anti-vaccination perceptions, among travelers to countries with endemic diseases, are a major public health concern. Although hesitancy towards vaccinations is not a novel phenomenon, it came back to the forefront during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This review explores the etiology of anti-vaccination beliefs among travelers and draws conclusions about their impact on public health and society in general. For this purpose, a purposeful search for data on the causative factors of vaccine hesitancy and their impact on people's health was conducted. A descriptive analysis of the findings and conclusions regarding possible implications in health policy and clinical practice are presented. A fear of side effects, lack of credence in the necessity of vaccines, and mistrust of medical authorities are important causative factors. Their interplay shapes hesitancy towards vaccines. However, anti-vaccination beliefs can also be an aspect of a more general unconventional stance of life. Health care professionals and organizations must be ready to tackle vaccine hesitancy by making the necessary interventions. Correcting misconceptions about vaccinations is a prerequisite for ensuring personal and public health, especially in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Moreover, ensuring the efficacy and safety of vaccines, especially in cases of modern technology applications, is a fundamental factor in addressing people's concerns about vaccines. For this purpose, medical authorities and organizations must provide accurate and clear information on vaccines so as to eliminate misinformation. Furthermore, clinicians should cultivate their communication skills in order to convey the appropriate messages to prospective recipients of vaccinations.

The shift in COVID-19 vaccination policy for pregnant women, from restricted to required, and the confusion that ensued.

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the response of pregnant women when the COVID-19 vaccination policy shifted from restricted to required, and the confusion that ensued during pregnancy, bearing in mind that women undergo unique physiological and immunological changes during pregnancy, making them at risk of developing a more severe course of COVID-19 infection compared to their non-pregnant peers. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at the outpatient clinics at Jordan University Hospital for all pregnant women during the period of the survey from 1st October 2021 to 31st December 2021, focusing on the source of information about the vaccine, receiving the vaccine, and the reasons for rejecting the vaccine, especially during pregnancy. Results: In total, 468 pregnant women were interviewed. The single primary source of information about the COVID-19 vaccine was the traditional media, audio-visual and print media being the most important as reported by 191 women (40.81%), while possible harm to the fetus was the single main reason for refusal of vaccination during pregnancy as reported by 111 women (23.72%). Conclusions: Reluctance toward vaccination is primarily driven by the fierce media campaign that portrayed its initially ambiguous effects on the pregnancy and fetus in a negative light, in conjunction with the open media platforms that enabled semi-experts to issue medically inaccurate statements and information and further complicated the matter by planting the seed of fear and mistrust of the public in the health care system and providers. More public healthcare awareness regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is needed.

Decisão de profissionais de saúde sobre sua vacinação anti-Covid-19: revisão integrativa / Decision of health professionals about their anti-COVID-19 vaccination: integrative review

RESUMO A decisão vacinal de profissionais de saúde tem sido observada em diferentes países, devido ao seu comportamento de hesitação frente à vacinação contra a Covid-19, que pode interferir no controle da pandemia. Pretendeu-se identificar os fatores associados à decisão vacinal de profissionais de saúde contra a Covid-19 em publicações de julho de 2020 a julho de 2022. Foi realizada uma revisão integrativa da literatura nas bases de dados PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science e Cinahl. Das 439 publicações, foram escolhidos 35 artigos para análise. As características sociodemográficas da decisão vacinal revelaram que profissionais não médicos, principalmente enfermeiros, apresentaram maior hesitação. O estudo revelou fatores associados à hesitação vacinal, tais como: dúvidas sobre a eficácia das vacinas e o processo de produção, insegurança pela escassez de estudos, medo dos efeitos colaterais e informações veiculadas em mídias sociais. Em relação à aceitação e à recomendação vacinal, ressaltam-se a vacinação prévia contra a influenza, a confiança na eficácia das vacinas e o receio pelo risco de contágio por Covid-19. A identificação dos fatores associados à decisão vacinal de profissionais de saúde contra a Covid-19 foi estratégica em relação à ampliação da cobertura vacinal, tanto para a proteção da saúde dos profissionais quanto para a da população.

ABSTRACT The vaccine decision of health professionals has been observed in different countries, due to their hesitation behavior in the face of vaccination against COVID-19, which can interfere with the control of the pandemic. It was intended to identify the factors associated with the vaccination decision of health professionals against COVID-19 in publications from July 2020 to July 2022. An Integrative Literature Review was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Of the 439 publications, 35 articles were chosen for analysis. The sociodemographic characteristics of the vaccine decision revealed that non-medical professionals, mainly nurses, had greater vaccine hesitancy. The study revealed factors associated with vaccine hesitancy, such as: doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines and the production process, insecurity due to lack of studies, fear of side effects and information conveyed on social media. Regarding vaccine acceptance and recommendation, prior vaccination against influenza, confidence in the effectiveness of vaccines and fear of the risk of contagion by COVID-19 stand out. Identifying the factors associated with the vaccination decision of health professionals against COVID-19 was strategic in relation to expanding vaccination coverage, both to protect the health of professionals and the population.

A study of acceptance and hesitation factors towards tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza vaccines during pregnancy.

Introduction: Vaccination of pregnant women with tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza vaccines is desirable to reduce neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. However, vaccine coverage rates and acceptance are frequently below recommended rates. Objectives: To ascertain Tdap and influenza vaccine coverage rates in our population and to study the reasons behind sub-optimal rates. Method: A survey was submitted to pregnant or in their puerperium women at the University Hospital of São Paulo University. Data were obtained during two consecutive influenza seasons (2017-2018), and vaccination was verified through vaccination chart checking. Respondents were classified according to their status as "Received Tdap" and "Didn't receive Tdap", and as "Know" or "Doesn't know" regarding their awareness of Tdap safety during pregnancy and protective effect on the newborn. Vaccine uptake and personal awareness of vaccination status were compared among these groups for Tdap and influenza vaccines. Results: In a studied sample of 207 patients (representative of the whole), coverage rates for Tdap and influenza vaccines were respectively 85.5% and 95.2%. Additionally, 84.5% received both vaccines. There was no vaccine refusal for Tdap and only 0.5% for influenza. For either Tdap or influenza vaccines, the main reason for not vaccinating was a lack of knowledge/information. Factors associated with not vaccinating Tdap during pregnancy were lower number of prenatal visits, being unemployed or freelance worker, not being aware of vaccine safety or its benefits for the baby, not being oriented by the doctor to be vaccinated, not being aware of personal vaccination status, and not having been vaccinated for influenza. Conclusion: While influenza vaccination coverage during pregnancy was ideal, Tdap rates were below recommended values. Significant factors associated with better coverage for Tdap during pregnancy included being employed and not being self-employed, (not yet reported in the Americas) and being aware of personal vaccination status.

Education, trust, and likelihood to vaccinate against COVID-19 among patients with diabetes in the American South.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explain the relationship among education, likelihood to vaccinate for COVID-19, and trust in healthcare providers among patients living with diabetes in the American South. METHODS: Explanatory iterative sequential mixed methods design combined retrospective chart review, self-report surveys, and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance revealed that severity of diabetes was not linked to vaccine acceptance. Overall, patients reported higher likelihood to vaccinate if their healthcare providers strongly recommend the vaccine. People with "some college" education reported lowest likelihood to vaccinate, before and after their healthcare providers' strong recommendation. Integrated analysis revealed the complexity of patient-provider trust and vaccination decisions. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of COVID vaccination, particularly as conspiracy theories entered the mainstream, measures of trust in the system may be a clearer indicator of vaccine decision making than trust in personal physician. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The nonlinear relationship between education and likelihood to vaccinate challenges providers to talk to patients about knowledge and understanding beyond a superficial, quantitative screening question about education. Health systems and public health officials need to find strategies to build trusting relationships for patients across systems, such as community health workers.

Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines through analysis of Twitter content and users.

BACKGROUND: With the global continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is crucial to achieve herd immunity and curtail further spread of the virus, but success is contingent on public understanding and vaccine uptake. We aim to understand public perception about vaccines for COVID-19 through the wide-scale, organic discussion on Twitter. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included Twitter posts matching the search criteria (('covid*' OR 'coronavirus') AND 'vaccine') posted during vaccine development from February 1st through December 11th, 2020. These COVID-19 vaccine related posts were analyzed with topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, and demographic inference of users to provide insight into the evolution of public attitudes throughout the study period. FINDINGS: We evaluated 2,287,344 English tweets from 948,666 user accounts. Individuals represented 87.9 % (n = 834,224) of user accounts. Of individuals, men (n = 560,824) outnumbered women (n = 273,400) by 2:1 and 39.5 % (n = 329,776) of individuals were ≥40 years old. Daily mean sentiment fluctuated congruent with news events, but overall trended positively. Trust, anticipation, and fear were the three most predominant emotions; while fear was the most predominant emotion early in the study period, trust outpaced fear from April 2020 onward. Fear was more prevalent in tweets by individuals (26.3 % vs. organizations 19.4 %; p < 0.001), specifically among women (28.4 % vs. males 25.4 %; p < 0.001). Multiple topics had a monthly trend towards more positive sentiment. Tweets comparing COVID-19 to the influenza vaccine had strongly negative early sentiment but improved over time. INTERPRETATION: This study successfully explores sentiment, emotion, topics, and user demographics to elucidate important trends in public perception about COVID-19 vaccines. While public perception trended positively over the study period, some trends, especially within certain topic and demographic clusters, are concerning for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These insights can provide targets for educational interventions and opportunity for continued real-time monitoring.

Exploring the underlying factors of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Ahvaz, Iran: a comprehensive cross-sectional study.

Purpose: Around 70% of the Iranian population had received two doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines by the end of 2021. In this study, we evaluated the reasons for vaccination refusal among people in Ahvaz, Iran. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 800 participants (400 vaccinated and 400 unvaccinated) were recruited. A demographic questionnaire was completed through interviews. The unvaccinated participants were asked about the reasons for their refusal. The Shapiro-Wilk test, independent t-test, chi-square test, and logistic regression were used for analyzing data. Results: Older people were 1.018 times more likely to refrain from vaccination (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.039; p=043). People who were manual workers as well as those who were unemployed/housewives were 0.288 and 0.423 times less likely to receive vaccination, respectively. Those with high school education and married women were 0.319 and 0.280 times less likely to receive vaccination, respectively (95% CI, 198-0.515; p<0.001; 95% CI, 0.186-0.422; p<0.001). Participants who had hypertension or suffered from neurological disorders were more likely to receive the vaccination. Finally, people affected with severe COVID-19 infection were 3.157 times more likely to get vaccinated (95% CI, 1.672-5.961; p<0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that lower level of education and older age were contributed to reluctance for vaccination, while having chronic diseases or being already infected with severe COVID-19 infection were associated with more acceptance of vaccination.

Qualitative assessment of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers in Pima County.

In the Spring of 2021, the COVID-19 vaccination was authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are one of the most trusted sources of information for vaccination choices. However, HCWs at this time appeared to continue to have lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination uptake than expected in Arizona. The objective of this study was to examine factors that play a role in the vaccination decision-making process among Arizona HCWs. Between January and April 2021, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted among physicians, emergency medical technicians and long-term care nurses in Pima County. The informed consent process was completed for each participant. The interview guide was informed by the Increasing Vaccination model to collect information on vaccination decision-making. A codebook was developed using an inductive approach. Coding and analysis was conducted using the software MAXQDA. Participants were primarily male (11/18, 61%) and white (11/18, 61%). Three participants identified as Hispanic. Initial themes that emerged included: mixed opinions concerning the innovations in COVID-19 vaccine development, access-related barriers, issues related to distribution inequities, concerns about misinformation and conspiracy theories, and dialogue concerning the benefits of requiring mandatory vaccination. The results gathered from this study indicate that there continues to be hesitancy among some healthcare professionals in Pima County. These results will be used to help Arizonan Health Departments promote rollout of novel vaccines more effectively through targeting relevant vaccination decision-making factors among HCWs.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a developing country: prevalence, explanatory factors and implications for the future.

OBJECTIVES: Vaccine hesitancy is a public health challenge highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to determine the prevalence and explanatory factors leading to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Jamaican population to inform vaccination strategies. STUDY DESIGN: This was an exploratory cross-sectional study. METHODS: An exploratory survey was distributed electronically between September and October 2021 to gather information on COVID-19 vaccination behaviour and beliefs among the Jamaican population. Data were expressed as frequencies and analysed using Chi-squared followed by multivariate logistic regressions. Significant analyses were determined at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 678 eligible responses, most were females (71.5%, n = 485), between ages 18-45 years (68.2%, n = 462), had tertiary education (83.4%, n = 564) and were employed (73.4%, n = 498), with 10.6% (n = 44) being healthcare workers. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was present in 29.8% (n = 202) of the survey population, mainly because of safety and efficacy concerns and a general lack of reliable information about the vaccines. The likelihood of hesitancy increased amongst respondents under 36 years (odds ratio [OR] 6.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6, 12.9), those who delayed initial acceptance of vaccines (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.3, 3.1); parents for their children and with long waits at vaccination centres. Likelihood of hesitancy decreased for respondents over 36 years (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.8, 7.8) and with vaccine support from pastors/religious leaders (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1, 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy was more prevalent in younger respondents who were never exposed to the effects of vaccine-preventable diseases. Religious leaders had more influence than healthcare workers to increase vaccine uptake.

Acceptance of vaccination against pertussis, COVID-19 and influenza during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the uptake of maternal pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination and the intention towards accepting the maternal influenza vaccination. Insights into different socio-demographic factors related to maternal vaccination coverage might help to address vaccine acceptance and improve maternal vaccine uptake in the future. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among pregnant women and recent mothers, up to 6 months post-partum. The primary outcome measures of this study were behaviour for maternal pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination, and maternal influenza vaccination intention. Associations between socio-demographic factors and maternal pertussis vaccination and maternal COVID-19 vaccination behaviour; and socio-demographic factors and maternal influenza vaccination intention were assessed using binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total 1361 respondents filled out the questionnaire. Almost all women (95%) were vaccinated against pertussis during pregnancy, while almost two-third were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy (58%) and almost one-third (28%) had a positive intention towards receiving the maternal influenza vaccination. Results show that young maternal age and low education level were associated with lower maternal vaccination acceptance. CONCLUSION: Vaccination campaigns focusing on the severity of diseases that are prevented, are needed to increase maternal vaccine acceptance in younger and low-educated pregnant women. We expect that differences in vaccination coverage between the three maternal vaccinations might partly be explained by existing recommendations, campaigns and whether the vaccination is part of the national immunisation program.

Parental Justifications for Not Vaccinating Children or Adolescents against Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Vaccination coverage against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is low compared with uptake of other vaccines in many countries, including Brazil. The aim of this study was to examine the main reasons provided by parents or guardians of a target population that did not have the first dose of HPV vaccine in a small rural Brazilian municipality, and to verify the factors associated with the reasons for non-vaccination. This is a cross-sectional study with interviews based on the Health Belief Model (HBM), conducted with parents and guardians of 177 unvaccinated children or adolescents. The outcome of interest was the main reason for not vaccinating the child/adolescent. The exposure factors of interest were knowledge about HPV and its prevention as well as sociodemographic characteristics. The main justifications for not vaccinating were lack of information (62.2%), fear or refusal (29.9%), and logistical issues (7.9%). The justifications associated with adolescents' sex, fear, or refusal were mentioned by 39.3% (95% CI: 28.8-50.6%) of parents or guardians of girls and by 21.5% (95% CI: 13.7-31.2%) of parents or guardians of boys. The main barrier to HPV vaccination is lack of information. Further training of health professionals in clarifying the benefits of vaccination and differentiating the risks between boys and girls could encourage uptake.

Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model.

Suboptimal levels of measles vaccination coverage make Italy a country where the circulation of the virus is still endemic. In the past decade, several nosocomial outbreaks of measles occurred in Italy that rapidly spread the infection among large numbers of hospitalized patients and susceptible healthcare workers (HCWs). A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital of Palermo (Italy) to estimate the rate of HCWs immunization and to investigate the factors associated with lack of immunization. The attitude to the immunization practice was evaluated by exploring the Health Belief Model. Overall, 118 HCWs were enrolled, with a mean age of 31 years and 59.3% male. About half of the sample (45.8%, n = 54) was found not to be immunized against measles. Multivariable analysis showed that the factors directly associated with the non-immunization status against measles were female sex (OR = 3.70, p = 0.056), being an HCW different from a physician (OR = 10.27, p = 0.015), having a high perception of barriers to vaccination (OR = 5.13, p = 0.047), not being immunized for other exanthematous diseases such as chickenpox (OR = 9.93, p = 0.003), mumps (OR = 33.64, p < 0.001) and rubella (OR = 10.12, p= 0.002). There is a need to contrast the low adherence of HCWs to measles vaccination by identifying effective strategies to increase immunization coverage and limiting the risk of further nosocomial measles outbreaks.

Segmentation analysis of the unvaccinated US adult population 2 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, 1 December 2021 to 7 February 2022.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a segmentation analysis of the unvaccinated adult US population to identify sociodemographic and psychographic characteristics of those who were vaccine accepting, vaccine unsure and vaccine averse. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Nationally representative, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: 211 303 participants aged ≥18 years were asked in the Household Pulse Survey conducted during 1 December 2021 to 7 February 2022, whether they had ever received a COVID-19 vaccine. Those answering 'No' were asked their receptivity to the vaccine and their responses were categorised as vaccine averse, unsure and accepting. Adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) were calculated in separate multivariable Poisson regression models to evaluate the correlation of the three vaccine dispositions. RESULTS: Overall, 15.2% of US adults were unvaccinated during 1 December 2021 to 7 February 2022, ranging from 5.8% in District of Columbia to 29.0% in Wyoming. Of the entire unvaccinated population nationwide, 51.0% were vaccine averse, 35.0% vaccine unsure and 14.0% vaccine accepting. The likelihood of vaccine aversion was higher among those self-employed (APR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.22) or working in a private company (APR=1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17) than those unemployed; living in a detached, single-family house than in a multiunit apartment (APR=1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.26); and insured by Veterans Affairs/Tricare than uninsured (APR=1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.47). Reasons for having not yet received a vaccine differed among those vaccine accepting, unsure and averse. The percentage reporting logistical or access-related barriers to getting a vaccine (eg, difficulty getting a vaccine, or perceived cost of the vaccine) was relatively higher than those vaccine accepting. Those vaccine unsure reported the highest prevalence of barriers related to perceived safety/effectiveness, including wanting to 'wait and see' if the vaccines were safe (45.2%) and uncertainty whether the vaccines would be effective in protecting them from COVID-19 (29.6%). Those vaccine averse reported the highest prevalence for barriers pertaining to lack of trust in the government or in the vaccines (50.1% and 57.5% respectively), the perception that COVID-19 was not that big of a threat (32.2%) and the perception that they did not need a vaccine (42.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The unvaccinated segment of the population is not a monolith, and a substantial segment may still get vaccinated if constraining factors are adequately addressed.

Emotional drivers of the vaccination hesitancy and refusal: A dataset from Slovakia.

The dataset comprises responses provided by 500 individuals (250 women) recruited by an external agency to be representative of the Slovak population concerning age and gender. Participants gave written consent to participate in the study by confirming that they are over 18 and have read all the information about the study before agreeing to participate in an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. Along with socio-demographic characteristics and vaccination hesitancy and refusal, the dataset contains variables that could explain variation in dependant variables: horizontal-vertical individualism-collectivism, consideration of future consequences, prosocial motivations, helplessness, and the sense of threat caused by vaccination but also the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate change. In the original paper, the authors performed correlational analysis and hierarchical regressions investigating antecedents of vaccination hesitancy and refusal. The data inform interventions aimed at boosting vaccination rates, particularly amongst highly sceptical societies such as Slovakia. Apart from investigating the relations between various forms of prosocial behaviour such as vaccination intentions and attitudes, helping behaviour during the pandemic, and pro-environmental behaviour, the dataset offers an opportunity to delve deeper into the drivers of various forms of socially beneficial behaviour. Ultimately, the data could help corroborate the existence of two new constructs of outward orientation (comprising future orientation, collectivism and prosocial motivations) and self-centred orientation (immediate orientation and individualism) that could be useful in explaining individual differences in prosocial intentions and behaviour.

"Why is it so necessary?": African American Parents' Perspectives on Delaying and Refusing HPV Vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of parents who had delayed and refused human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for their children, even when it was discussed or recommended by a health care provider, and to identify the factors related to vaccine hesitancy. METHOD: Twenty predominantly African American parents of children aged 11-17 years were recruited from various community clinics and organizations to participate in focus groups about their decision-making regarding HPV vaccination. Using deductive content analysis and the Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix, we describe their perspectives and influences on vaccination decision-making. RESULTS: Multiple reasons emerged, which included concerns about the age of children, perceived discrimination and mistrust based on race and socioeconomic status, and vaccine safety. DISCUSSION: Findings support the development of targeted interventions that address vaccine safety concerns, mistrust, patient-provider communication, and parent education about the benefits of HPV vaccination.