The Be REAL Framework: Enhancing Relationship-Building Skills for Community Health Workers.

Trust plays an integral part in the effective functioning of public health systems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distrust of public health fueled vaccine hesitancy and created additional barriers to immunization. Although most Americans have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine, the percentage of fully immunized adults remains suboptimal. To reach vaccine-hesitant communities, it is vital that public health be worthy of trust. As trusted members of their communities, community health workers (CHWs) can serve as ideal messengers and conversation partners for vaccination decision-making. We developed the Be REAL framework and training materials to prepare CHWs to work with vaccine-hesitant communities nationwide. Through the four steps of "Relate," "Explore," "Assist," and "Leave (the door open)," CHWs were taught to prioritize relationship building as a primary goal. In this shift from focusing on adherence to public health recommendations (e.g., get vaccinated) to building relationships, the value of vaccine uptake is secondary to the quality of the relationship being formed. The Be REAL framework facilitates CHWs harnessing the power they already possess. The goal of the Be REAL framework is to foster true partnership between CHWs and community members, which in turn can help increase trust in the broader public health system beyond adherence to a specific recommendation.

Risk and Benefit of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines for the Omicron Variant by Age, Sex, and Presence of Comorbidity: A Quality-Adjusted Life Years Analysis.

The development of the mutant omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raised the importance of reevaluating the risk and benefit of COVID-19 vaccines. With a decision tree model, we calculated the benefit-risk ratio and the benefit-risk difference of receiving monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine (primary 2 doses, a third dose, and a fourth dose) in the 4-5 months after vaccination using quality-adjusted life years. The analysis was stratified by age, sex, and the presence of comorbidity. Evidence from peer-reviewed publications and gray literature was reviewed on September 16, 2022, to inform the study. Benefit-risk ratios for receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) ranged from 6.8 for males aged 12-17 years without comorbidity for the primary doses to 221.3 for females aged ≥65 years with comorbidity for the third dose. The benefit-risk ratios for receipt of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) ranged from 7.2 for males aged 18-29 years without comorbidity for the primary doses to 101.4 for females aged ≥65 years with comorbidity for the third dose. In all scenarios of the one-way sensitivity analysis, the benefit-risk ratios were more than 1, irrespective of age, sex, comorbidity status, and type of vaccine, for both primary and booster doses. The benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in protecting against the omicron variant outweigh the risks, irrespective of age, sex, and comorbidity.

Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Attitudes About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination After Emergency Use Authorization.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: recommendations from the Lancet Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA.

Since the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the USA in January, 2020, over 46 million people in the country have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorisations from the US Food and Drug Administration, with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine receiving full approval on Aug 23, 2021. When paired with masking, physical distancing, and ventilation, COVID-19 vaccines are the best intervention to sustainably control the pandemic. However, surveys have consistently found that a sizeable minority of US residents do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The most severe consequence of an inadequate uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been sustained community transmission (including of the delta [B.1.617.2] variant, a surge of which began in July, 2021). Exacerbating the direct impact of the virus, a low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will prolong the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic on families and communities, especially low-income and minority ethnic groups, into 2022, or even longer. The scale and challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are unprecedented. Therefore, through a series of recommendations, we present a coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioural intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of COVID-19 vaccine programmes across the USA.

MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers. METHODS: MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention. RESULTS: By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

Use of Random Domain Intercept Technology to Track COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Real Time Across the United States: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely COVID-19 vaccination coverage data are vital for informing targeted, effective messaging and outreach and identifying barriers to equitable health service access. However, gathering vaccination rate data is challenging, and efforts often result in information that is either limited in scope (eg, limited to administrative data) or delayed (impeding the ability to rapidly respond). The evaluation of innovative technologies and approaches that can assist in addressing these limitations globally are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this survey study was to assess the validity of Random Domain Intercept Technology (RDIT; RIWI Corp) for tracking self-reported vaccination rates in real time at the US national and state levels. RDIT-a form of online intercept sampling-has the potential to address the limitations of current vaccination tracking systems by allowing for the measurement of additional data (eg, attitudinal data) and real-time, rapid data collection anywhere there is web access. METHODS: We used RDIT from June 30 to July 26, 2021, to reach a broad sample of US adult (aged ≥18 years) web users and asked questions related to COVID-19 vaccination. Self-reported vaccination status was used as the focus of this validation exercise. National- and state-level RDIT-based vaccination rates were compared to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-reported national and state vaccination rates. Johns Hopkins University's and Emory University's institutional review boards designated this project as public health practice to inform message development (not human subjects research). RESULTS: By using RDIT, 63,853 adult web users reported their vaccination status (6.2% of the entire 1,026,850 American web-using population that was exposed to the survey). At the national level, the RDIT-based estimate of adult COVID-19 vaccine coverage was slightly higher (44,524/63,853, 69.7%; 95% CI 69.4%-70.1%) than the CDC-reported estimate (67.9%) on July 15, 2021 (ie, midway through data collection; t63,852=10.06; P<.001). The RDIT-based and CDC-reported state-level estimates were strongly and positively correlated (r=0.90; P<.001). RDIT-based estimates were within 5 percentage points of the CDC's estimates for 29 states. CONCLUSIONS: This broad-reaching, real-time data stream may provide unique advantages for tracking the use of a range of vaccines and for the timely evaluation of vaccination interventions. Moreover, RDIT could be harnessed to rapidly assess demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral constructs that are not available in administrative data, which could allow for deeper insights into the real-time predictors of vaccine uptake-enabling targeted and timely interventions.

Assessment of US Healthcare Personnel Attitudes Towards Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in a Large University Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: As a priority group, healthcare personnel (HCP) will be key to the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. This study assessed HCP willingness to get vaccinated and identified specific concerns that would undermine vaccination efforts. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees, between 23 November and 5 December 2020. The survey evaluated attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to get vaccinated. RESULTS: There were 5287 respondents with a mean (SD) age of 42.5 (13.56) years; 72.8% were female (n = 3842). Overall, 57.5 % of individuals expressed intent to receive COVID-19 vaccine; 80.4% were physicians and scientists representing the largest group. 33.6% of registered nurses, 31.6% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master's level clinicians were unsure they would take the vaccine (P < .001). Respondents who were older, male, White, or Asian were more likely to get vaccinated than other groups. Vaccine safety, potential adverse events, efficacy, and speed of vaccine development dominated concerns listed by participants. Fewer (54.0%) providers of direct care versus non-care providers (62.4%) and 52.0% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients (vs 60.6% of those who had not) indicated they would take the vaccine if offered (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by hospital roles, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance. These findings highlight important heterogeneity in personal attitudes among HCPs around COVID-19 vaccines and highlight a need for tailored communication strategies.

Evaluation of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The rapid process of research and development and lack of follow-up time post-vaccination aroused great public concern about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. To provide comprehensive overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines by using meta-analysis technique. METHODS: English-language articles and results posted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PMC, official regulatory websites, and post-authorization safety surveillance data were searched through June 12, 2021. Publications disclosing safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines in humans were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled incidence and the pooled rate ratio (RR) of safety outcomes of COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms. RESULTS: A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. The pooled rates of local and systemic reactions were significantly lower among inactivated vaccines (23.7%, 21.0%), protein subunit vaccines (33.0%, 22.3%), and DNA vaccines (39.5%, 29.3%), compared to RNA vaccines (89.4%, 83.3%), non-replicating vector vaccines (55.9%, 66.3%), and virus-like particle vaccines (100.0%, 78.9%). Solicited injection-site pain was the most common local reactions, and fatigue and headache were the most common systemic reactions. The frequency of vaccine-related serious adverse events was low (< 0.1%) and balanced between treatment groups. Vaccine platforms and age groups of vaccine recipients accounted for much of the heterogeneity in safety profiles between COVID-19 vaccines. Reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization observational studies were similar to results from clinical trials. Crude reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization safety monitoring (passive surveillance) were lower than in clinical trials and varied between countries. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further define the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Development of a Scale to Measure Trust in Public Health Authorities: Prevalence of Trust and Association with Vaccination.

Infectious disease outbreaks highlight the importance of trust in public health authorities to avoid fear and improve adherence to recommendations. There is currently no established and validated measure for trust in public health authorities. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures trust in public health authorities and to assess the association between trust in public health authorities and vaccine attitudes. We developed 20 items to measure trust in public health authorities. After implementing a survey in January 2020, we investigated relationships between the items, reduced the number of items, and identified latent constructs of the scale. We assessed variability in trust and how trust was associated with vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported vaccine acceptance. The pool was reduced to a 14-item trust in public health authorities scale and we found that this trust model was strongly associated with acceptance of vaccines. Our scale can be used to examine the relationship between trust in public health authorities and adherence to public health recommendations. The measure needs to be validated in other settings to determine whether they are associated with other areas where the public question public health authority recommendations.

California's Senate Bill 277: Local Health Jurisdictions' Experiences With the Elimination of Nonmedical Vaccine Exemptions.

Objectives. To understand the experiences of local health jurisdictions with Senate Bill 277 (SB277), the California law that eliminated nonmedical vaccine exemptions for public- and private-school entry.Methods. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with health officers and local health department (LHD) staff in California between August and September 2017.Results. Two overall themes emerged: (1) vague legislative and regulatory language led to variation in the interpretation and implementation of SB277, and (2) lack of centralized review of medical exemptions allowed medical exemptions that are not consistent with valid contraindications for immunizations to be accepted. Variation in the interpretation and implementation was commonly reported with provisions related to individualized education programs and special education, and independent study programs and homeschooling. Without a centralized review of medical exemption requests, respondents reported variation in the interpretation of which specialties of physicians can write medical exemptions, which conditions constitute a valid contraindication for immunization, and the process for reporting a questionable or suspicious medical exemption.Conclusions. The regulatory language within SB277 led to variation in how the law was interpreted and implemented within and across LHD jurisdictions and school districts.

The Salzburg Statement on Vaccination Acceptance.

Immunization represents one of the greatest public health achievements. Vaccines save lives, make communities more productive and strengthen health systems. They are critical to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Vaccination also represents value for investment in public health. It is undisputedly one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease, each year preventing 2-3 million deaths globally. We the concerned scientists, public health professionals, physicians, and child health advocates issue this Salzburg Statement along with the International Working Group on Vaccination and Public Health Solutions, proclaiming our unwavering commitment to universal childhood vaccination, and our pledge to support the development, testing, implementation, and evaluation of new, effective, and fact-based communication programs. Our goal is to explain vaccinations to parents or caregivers, answer their questions, address their concerns, and maintain public confidence in the personal, family and community protection that childhood vaccines provide. Every effort will also be made to communicate the dangers associated with these childhood illnesses to parents and communities since this information seems to have been lost in the present-day narrative. While vaccine misinformation has led to serious declines in community vaccination rates that require immediate attention, in other communities, particularly in low-income countries, issues such as lack of access. and unstable supply of vaccines need to be addressed.

Associations of Statewide Legislative and Administrative Interventions With Vaccination Status Among Kindergartners in California.

Importance: California implemented 3 interventions to increase uptake of vaccines. In 2014, Assembly bill 2109 tightened requirements for obtaining a personal belief exemption. A 2015 campaign provided educational materials to school staff on the proper application of conditional admission for kindergartners who were not up to date on required vaccinations. In 2016, Senate bill 277 eliminated personal belief exemptions. Prior research has not evaluated these 3 interventions together with regard to the vaccination status of students. Objective: To assess the changes in the yearly rates of kindergartners who were not up to date on required vaccinations who were entering school during the period of the interventions, by focusing on geographic clustering and the potential contacts of these kindergartners. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study that used cross-sectional school-entry data from 2000-2017 to calculate the rates of kindergartners attending California schools who were not up to date on required vaccinations. Exposures: Assembly bill 2109, a conditional admission education program, and Senate bill 277. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the yearly rate of kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status. The secondary outcomes were (1) the modified aggregation index, which was used to assess the potential within-school contacts among kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status, (2) the number of geographic clusters of schools with rates for kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status that were higher than the rates for schools located outside the cluster, and (3) the number of schools located inside the geographic clusters. Results: In California between 2000 and 2017, 9 323 315 children started attending kindergarten and 721 593 were not up to date on required vaccinations. Prior to the interventions, the statewide rate of kindergartners without up-to-date status for required vaccinations increased from 7.80% during 2000 to 9.84% during 2013 and then decreased after the interventions to 4.87% during 2017. The percentage chance for within-school contact among kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status decreased from 26.02% during 2014 to 4.56% (95% CI, 4.21%-4.99%) during 2017. During 2012-2013, there were 124 clusters that contained 3026 schools with high rates of kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status. During 2014-2015, there were 93 clusters that contained 2290 schools with high rates of kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status. During 2016-2017, there were 110 clusters that contained 1613 (95% CI, 1565-1691) schools. Conclusions and Relevance: In California, statewide legislative and educational interventions were associated with a decrease in the yearly rates of kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status. These interventions also were associated with reductions in the number of schools inside the clusters with high rates of kindergartners without up-to-date vaccination status and the potential for contact among these kindergartners.

Florida physicians' reported use of AFIX-based strategies for human papillomavirus vaccination.

HPV vaccination rates in Florida are low. To increase rates, the CDC recommends clinics adhere to components of their evidence-based quality improvement program, AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange of information). We explored factors associated with engaging in HPV-specific AFIX-related activities. In 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 770 pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida and assessed vaccination practices, clinic characteristics, and HPV-related knowledge. Data were analyzed in 2017. The primary outcome was whether physicians' clinics engaged in ≥1 AFIX activity. We stratified by physician specialty and developed multivariable models using a backward selection approach. Of the participants in the analytic sample (n = 340), 52% were male, 60% were White of any ethnicity, and 55% were non-Hispanic. Pediatricians and family medicine physicians differed on: years practicing medicine (p < 0.001), HPV-related knowledge (p < 0.001), and VFC provider status (p < 0.001), among others. Only 39% of physicians reported engaging in ≥1 AFIX activity. In the stratified multivariable model for pediatricians, AFIX activity was significantly associated with HPV-related knowledge (aOR = 1.33;95%CI = 1.08-1.63) and provider use of vaccine reminder prompts (aOR = 3.61;95%CI = 1.02-12.77). For family medicine physicians, HPV-related knowledge was significant (aOR = 1.57;95%CI = 1.20-2.05) as was majority race of patient population (non-Hispanic White vs. Other: aOR = 3.02;95%CI = 1.08-8.43), daily patient load (<20 vs. 20-24: aOR = 9.05;95%CI = 2.72-30.10), and vaccine administration to male patients (aOR = 2.98;95%CI = 1.11-8.02). Fewer than half of Florida pediatric and family medicine physicians engaged in any AFIX activities. Future interventions to increase AFIX engagement should focus on implementing and evaluating AFIX activities in groups identified as having low engagement in AFIX activities.