'Is It Safe? Is it not?' A Youth-Led Photovoice Study of Youth Perspectives of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.

BACKGROUND: Youth have been uniquely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite high rates of COVID-19 infection, youth had one of the lowest vaccine uptake rates. Certain characteristics can affect vaccine uptake, such as mental health and substance use, but it is important to understand uptake for an effective response to pandemics. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the perspectives of youth with mental health or substance use concerns on COVID-19 vaccine confidence, hesitancy and overall COVID-19 vaccine perspectives. METHODS: Using photovoice, a community-based participatory research method, a sample of 27 youth aged 14-24 years participated in a series of photography workshops and focus groups. Participants submitted final photographs for discussion. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Four themes were generated: (1) Youth deciphered the vaccine discourse in a changing information landscape; (2) mixed perspectives of families, friends and loved ones influenced the vaccine journey; (3) complex societal influences affected views and decisions around the COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) youth navigated their vaccine journeys through first- and second-hand experiences. The four themes and subthemes highlight the evolution of youth's journeys with the COVID-19 vaccine over the course of the pandemic and into the late-pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with mental health or substance use challenges navigated a complex environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The wide variety of factors influencing vaccine perspectives should be taken into account in public health messaging and future research on youth vaccine uptake. Youth-led and youth-engaged research can help solicit rich and meaningful perspectives of young people on important public health issues. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This was a youth-led study. A youth research analyst conducted the study activities together with the support of a youth advisory group, an adult photographer with lived experience, and a scientific team.

Examining the role of knowledge and trust on vaccine confidence in North Dakota among university students, faculty, and staff.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is one of the greatest tools for individuals to stay healthy. Individuals are, however, often exposed to misinformation via digital and social media, and thus, may miss the opportunity to develop scientific knowledge about vaccines and trust in relevant stakeholders. This has a damaging impact on vaccine confidence. Understanding vaccine confidence is particularly important in North Dakota, where vaccination rates are lower than national averages. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research are to examine the association between vaccine confidence and three potential sources of it, namely, trust, vaccine knowledge, and vaccine information sources and to investigate the relative strength of three vaccine confidence sources, while accounting for covariates. METHODS: Students (n = 517, 56.6%) and staff and faculty (n = 397, 43.4%) at the University of North Dakota (n = 914) completed an online survey. Logistic regressions estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations among trust in doctors, family/friends, government health agencies, charitable organizations, and religious organizations, vaccine knowledge, vaccine information sources as well as vaccine confidence, accounting for gender, race, marital status, age, religion, political ideology, education, and health status. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 29.43 years (SD = 13.48). Most were females (71.6%) and white (91.5%). Great trust in doctors (OR = 3.29, p < 0.001, 95%CI 1.89, 5.73) government health agencies (OR = 2.95, p < 0.001, 95%CI 2.13, 4.08) and vaccine knowledge (OR = 1.28, p < 0.001, 95%CI 1.18, 1.38) had higher odds of vaccine confidence. Using Internet Government source as the primary source of vaccine information (OR = 1.73, p < 0.05, 95%CI 1.22, 2.44) showed higher odds of vaccine confidence before all independent variables were introduced, but it became non-significant after they were introduced. Trust in government health agencies showed strongest associations with vaccine confidence. CONCLUSION: Multiple stakeholders are necessary to ensure verified, accessible, and accurate information in order to advance vaccine confidence in rural, conservative areas.

Connect, collaborate and tailor: a model of community engagement through infographic design during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Across the globe, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection and burden from disease. Vaccine hesitancy has contributed to variation in vaccine uptake and compromised population-based vaccination programs in many countries. Connect, Collaborate and Tailor (CCT) is a Public Health Agency of Canada funded project to make new connections between public health, healthcare professionals and underserved communities in order to create culturally adapted communication about COVID-19 vaccines. This paper describes the CCT process and outcomes as a community engagement model that identified information gaps and created tailored tools to address misinformation and improve vaccine acceptance. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with CCT participants were undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of CCT in identifying and addressing topics of concern to underserved and ethnic minority communities. Interviews also explored CCT participants' experiences of collaboration through the development of new partnerships between ethnic minority communities, public health and academic researchers, and the evolution of co-operation sharing ideas and creating infographics. Thematic analysis was used to produce representative themes. The activities described were aligned with the levels of public engagement described in the IAP2 spectrum (International Association for Public Participation). RESULTS: Analysis of interviews (n = 14) revealed that shared purpose and urgency in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic motivated co-operation among CCT participants. Acknowledgement of past harm, present health, and impact of social inequities on public service access was an essential first step in establishing trust. Creating safe spaces for open dialogue led to successful, iterative cycles of consultation and feedback between participants; a process that not only helped create tailored infographics but also deepened engagement and collaboration. Over time, the infographic material development was increasingly directed by community representatives' commentary on their groups' real-time needs and communication preferences. This feedback noticeably guided the choice, style, and presentation of infographic content while also directing dissemination strategies and vaccine confidence building activities. CONCLUSIONS: The CCT process to create COVID-19 vaccine communication materials led to evolving co-operation between groups who had not routinely worked together before; strong community engagement was a key driver of change. Ensuring a respectful environment for open dialogue and visibly using feedback to create information products provided a foundation for building relationships. Finally, our data indicate participants sought reinforcement of close cooperative ties and continued investment in shared responsibility for community partnership-based public health.

Behavioral and social drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation in the US: a longitudinal study March─ October 2021.

Many studies have examined behavioral and social drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation, but few have examined these drivers longitudinally. We sought to identify the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation using the Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Framework. Participants were a nationally-representative sample of 1,563 US adults who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine by baseline. Participants took surveys online at baseline (spring 2021) and follow-up (fall 2021). The surveys assessed variables from BeSD Framework domains (i.e., thinking and feeling, social processes, and practical issues), COVID-19 vaccination initiation, and demographics at baseline and follow-up. Between baseline and follow-up, 65% of respondents reported initiating COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccination intent increased from baseline to follow-up (p < .01). Higher vaccine confidence, more positive social norms towards vaccination, and receiving vaccine recommendations at baseline predicted subsequent COVID-19 vaccine initiation (all p < .01). Among factors assessed at follow-up, social responsibility and vaccine requirements had the greatest associations with vaccine initiation (all p < .01). Baseline vaccine confidence, social norms, and vaccination recommendations were associated with subsequent vaccine initiation, all of which could be useful targets for behavioral interventions. Furthermore, interventions that highlight social responsibility to vaccinate or promote vaccination requirements could also be beneficial.

Child and adolescent COVID-19 vaccination coverage by educational setting, United States.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the setting of education for many children in the U.S. Understanding COVID-19 vaccination coverage by educational setting is important for developing targeted messages, increasing parents' confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and protecting all children from severe effects of COVID-19 infection. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Using data from the Household Pulse Survey (n = 25,173) collected from December 9-19, 2022, January 4-16, 2023, and February 1-13, 2023, this study assessed factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination and reasons for non-vaccination among school-aged children 5-11 and adolescents 12-17 by educational setting. RESULTS: Among children 5-11 years, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was higher among those who received in-person instruction (53.7%) compared to those who were homeschooled (32.5%). Furthermore, among adolescents 12-17 years, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was higher among those who received in-person instruction (73.5%) or virtual/online instruction (70.1%) compared to those who were homeschooled (51.0%). Children and adolescents were more likely to be vaccinated if the parental respondent had been vaccinated compared to those who had not. Among children and adolescents who were homeschooled, main reasons for non-vaccination were concern about side effects (45.4-51.6%), lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (45.0-50.9%), and lack of trust in the government (32.7-39.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents who were home-schooled during the pandemic had lower vaccination coverage than those who attended school in person, and adolescents who were home-schooled had lower vaccination coverage than those who received virtual instruction. Based on the reasons for non-vaccination identified in this study, increasing parental confidence in vaccines, and reducing barriers to access are important for supporting COVID-19 vaccination for school-age children.

COVID-19 vaccine confidence, concerns, and uptake in children aged 5 and older in Calgary, Alberta: a longitudinal cohort study.

Objectives: Beginning early in the pandemic, there was a worldwide effort to develop effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Before and after the approval and implementation of vaccines, there were concerns about their need as well as their safety and rapid development. We explored child demographic characteristics and parental concerns to identify factors associated with the decision to vaccinate. Methods: A cohort of 1035 children from Calgary was assembled in 2020 to participate in 5 visits every 6 months for survey completion and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Visits 1 to 2 occurred before approval of vaccines for children; Visits 3 to 5 occurred after vaccine approval for different age groups. We described vaccine concerns and utilized logistic regression to examine factors associated with the decision to vaccinate in children ≥5 years of age. Results: Children ≥12 years of age, of non-white or non-black ethnicity, and who had received previous influenza vaccines had higher odds of being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Children with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had lower odds of being vaccinated. The most common concerns in early 2021 were about vaccine safety. By summer 2022, the most common concern was a belief that vaccines were not necessary. Through the study 88% of children were vaccinated. Conclusions: Age, ethnicity, previous infections, and vaccine attitudes were associated with parental decision to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2. For children who remained unvaccinated, parents continued to have safety concerns and questioned the necessity of the vaccine. Complacency about the need for vaccination may be more challenging to address and overcome than concerns about safety alone.

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in People Living with HIV: A pan-Canadian Survey.

Understanding the roots of Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in at-risk groups, such as persons living with HIV (PLWH), is of utmost importance. We developed a modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) questionnaire using items from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Acceptability Matrix. To examine factors associated with receiving COVID-19 vaccine and the link between vaccine attitudes and beliefs with vaccine behavior, PLWH were recruited via social media and community-based organizations (February-May 2022). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Total VHS score was generated by adding Likert scale scores and linear regression models used to compare results between participants who received or did not receive COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake. A total of 246 PLWH indicated whether they received a COVID-19 vaccine. 89% received ≥ 1 dose. Mean total VHS(SD) for persons having received ≥ 1 COVID-19 vaccine was 17.8(6.2) vs. 35.4(9.4) for participants not having received any COVID-19 vaccine. Persons who received ≥ 1 dose were significantly older than those who had not received any (48.4 ± 13.8 vs. 34.0 ± 7.7 years, p < 0.0001). The majority of participants considered COVID-19 vaccination important for their health(81.3%) and the health of others(84.4%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed the odds of taking ≥ 1dose were increased 2.4-fold [95% CI 1.6, 3.5] with each increase in age of 10 years (p < 0.0001). Sex and ethnicity were not different between groups. In conclusion, PLWH accept COVID-19 vaccines for both altruistic and individual reasons. With evolving recommendations and increasing numbers of booster vaccines, we must re-examine the needs of PLWH regularly.

Informing efforts beyond tailored promotional campaigns by understanding contextual factors shaping vaccine hesitancy among equity-deserving populations in Canada: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy exists on a continuum ranging between complete adherence and complete refusal due to doubts or concerns within a heterogeneous group of individuals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contextual factors influencing attitudes and beliefs shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research with equity-deserving groups, accounting for unique lived experiences, remains a gap in the literature. We aim to identify and begin to understand and document the unique contextual factors shaping hesitancy by equity-deserving groups as it relates to relationships with government and health authorities. METHODS: Participants were recruited and interviewed between Aug-Dec 2021. Semi-structured interviews using a convergent interviewing technique were conducted with individuals from the general population, as well as individuals who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, members of the LGBT2SQ + community, low-income Canadians, Black Canadians, and newcomers. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a team of researchers. Memos were written following interviews and used to complement the thematic analysis of the interview data. Themes are presented in the results section. RESULTS: The rationale for hesitancy among equity-deserving groups is consistent with literature documenting hesitancy in the general population. Contextual factors surrounding equity-deserving groups' attitudes and beliefs, however, are unique and relate to a history of oppression, discrimination, and genocide. We identified factors unique to subgroups; for example, religious or fatalistic beliefs among participant who identify as FNMI, fear associated with lack of testing and speed of vaccines' production among participants who identify as FNMI, Black, and LGBT2SQ + , distrust of the healthcare system for LGBT2SQ + and Black Canadians, and distrust of the government and opposition to vaccine mandates for participating who identify as LGBT2SQ + , low-income, FNMI, or Black Canadian. Newcomers stood out as very trusting of the government and accepting of COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: While our data on vaccine hesitancy largely mirror concerns reported in the vast body of literature citing rationale for COVID-19 hesitancy in high-income countries, the contextual factors identified in our work point to the need for wider systemic change. Our results may be used to support efforts, beyond tailored promotion campaigns, to support the confident acceptance of vaccines for COVID-19 and the acceptance of novel vaccines as future infectious diseases emerge.

Understanding and explaining the link between anthroposophy and vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to low vaccination uptake and measles outbreaks across Europe, public health authorities have paid increasing attention to anthroposophic communities. Public media outlets have further described these communities as vaccine refusers or "anti-vaxxers". The aim of this review was to understand the scope of the problem and explore assumptions about vaccination beliefs in anthroposophic communities. For the purpose of this review, we define anthroposophic communities as people following some/certain views more or less loosely connected to the philosophies of anthroposophy. The systematic review addresses three research questions and (1) collates evidence documenting outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities, (2) literature on vaccination coverage in anthroposophic communities, and (3) lastly describes literature that summarizes theories and factors influencing vaccine decision-making in anthroposophic communities. METHODS: This is a systematic review using the following databases: Medline, Web of Science, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. Double-blinded article screening was conducted by two researchers. Data was summarized to address the research questions. For the qualitative research question the data was analysed using thematic analysis with the assistance of Nvivo12.0. RESULTS: There were 12 articles documenting 18 measles outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities between the years 2000 and 2012. Seven articles describe lower vaccination uptake in anthroposophic communities than in other communities, although one article describes that vaccination coverage in low-income communities with a migrant background was lower than in the anthroposophic community they studied. We found eight articles examining factors and theories influencing vaccine decision making in anthroposophic communities. The qualitative analysis revealed four common themes. Firstly, there was a very broad spectrum of vaccine beliefs among the anthroposophic communities. Secondly, there was a consistent narrative about problems or concerns with vaccines, including toxicity and lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, there was a strong notion of the importance of making individual and well-informed choices as opposed to simply following the masses. Lastly, making vaccine choices different from public health guidelines was highly stigmatized by those outside of the anthroposophic community but also those within the community. CONCLUSION: Continuing to further knowledge of vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities is particularly important in view of increasing measles rates and potential sudden reliance on vaccines for emerging diseases. However, popular assumptions about vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities are challenged by the data presented in this systematic review.

"Community members have more impact on their neighbors than celebrities": leveraging community partnerships to build COVID-19 vaccine confidence.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are a strong public health tool to protect against severe disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Still, inequities in COVID-19 vaccination rates and health outcomes continue to exist among Black and Latino populations. Boston Medical Center (BMC) has played a significant role in vaccinating medically underserved populations, and organized a series of community-engaged conversations to better understand community concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. This paper describes the themes which resulted from these community-engaged conversations and proposes next steps for healthcare leaders. METHODS: We accessed nine publicly available recordings of the community-engaged conversations which were held between March 2021 and September 2021 and ranged from 8 to 122 attendees. Six conversations prioritized specific groups: the Haitian-Creole community, the Cape Verdean community, the Latino community, the Black Christian Faith community, guardians who care for children living with disabilities, and individuals affected by systemic lupus erythematosus. Remaining conversations targeted the general public of the Greater Boston Area. We employed a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-driven codebook to code our data. Our analysis utilized a modified version of qualitative rapid analysis methods. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from these community-engaged conversations: (1) Structural factors are important barriers to COVID-19 vaccination; (2) Mistrust exists due to the negative impact of systemic oppression and perceived motivation of the government; (3) There is a desire to learn more about biological and clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the practical implications of being vaccinated; (4) Community leaders emphasize community engagement for delivering COVID-19 information and education and; (5) Community leaders believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is a solution to address the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a need for community-engaged COVID-19 vaccine messaging which reflects the nuances of the COVID-19 vaccine and pandemic without oversimplifying information. In highlighting common concerns of the Greater Boston Area which contribute to a lack of confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine, we underscore important considerations for public health and healthcare leadership in the development of initiatives which work to advance health equity.

"Figuring stuff out myself" - a qualitative study on maternal vaccination in socially and ethnically diverse areas in England.

BACKGROUND: Maternal vaccinations against Influenza, Pertussis, and Covid-19 are recommended in the UK, and vaccines against further infections may become available soon. However, many pregnant women, especially in socially and ethnically diverse areas, have low vaccine uptake. Qualitative studies on the reasons and possible solutions are needed that are inclusive of disadvantaged and minority ethnic groups. We therefore aimed to understand the complex interplay between structural and behavioural factors contributing to the low maternal vaccine uptake in socially and ethnically diverse areas in London in the Covid-19 context. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion among a purposive sample of 38 pregnant/recently pregnant women and 20 health service providers, including 12 midwives. Participants were recruited in ethnically diverse London boroughs. We followed a critical realist paradigm and used a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The sample included participants who took all, some or none of the maternal vaccines, with some participants unsure whether they had taken or been offered the vaccines. Decision-making was passive or active, with the expectation for pregnant women to do their 'own research'. Participants described various individual, social and contextual influences on their decision-making as they navigated the antenatal care system. Missing or conflicting information from providers meant knowledge gaps were sometimes filled with misinformation from unreliable sources that increased uncertainties and mistrust. Both pregnant women and providers described structural and organisational factors that hindered access to information and vaccinations, including lack of training, time and resources, and shortcomings of health information systems and apps. Some participants described factors that facilitated vaccination uptake and many made recommendations for improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed how structural and organisational factors can compound uncertainties around maternal vaccination among socially and ethnically diverse populations. Results highlight the need for more reliable resources, streamlined workflows, improved electronic information systems and training in their use. Roles and responsibilities should be clarified with potential greater involvement of nurses and pharmacists in vaccine provision. Education and communication should consider individual (language/digital) skills and needs for information and reassurance. Further research is needed to co-produce solutions with service users and providers.

Unintended consequences of communicating rapid COVID-19 vaccine policy changes- a qualitative study of health policy communication in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The success of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out depended on clear policy communication and guidance to promote and facilitate vaccine uptake. The rapidly evolving pandemic circumstances led to many vaccine policy amendments. The impact of changing policy on effective vaccine communication and its influence in terms of societal response to vaccine promotion are underexplored; this qualitative research addresses that gap within the extant literature. METHODS: Policy communicators and community leaders from urban and rural Ontario participated in semi-structured interviews (N = 29) to explore their experiences of COVID-19 vaccine policy communication. Thematic analysis was used to produce representative themes. RESULTS: Analysis showed rapidly changing policy was a barrier to smooth communication and COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Continual amendments had unintended consequences, stimulating confusion, disrupting community outreach efforts and interrupting vaccine implementation. Policy changes were most disruptive to logistical planning and community engagement work, including community outreach, communicating eligibility criteria, and providing translated vaccine information to diverse communities. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine policy changes that allow for prioritized access can have the unintended consequence of limiting communities' access to information that supports decision making. Rapidly evolving circumstances require a balance between adjusting policy and maintaining simple, consistent public health messages that can readily be translated into action. Information access is a factor in health inequality that needs addressing alongside access to vaccines.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

Broad perspectives in understanding vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence: an introduction to the special issue.

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence among the most pressing issues in global health. The COVID-19 pandemic has made vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence particularly salient and urgent. The purpose of this special issue is to highlight a broad range of perspectives on these critical issues. We have included a total of 30 papers that address issues related to vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence across multiple levels of the Socio-Ecological Model. We have organized the empirical papers into the following sections: individual-level beliefs, minority health and health disparities, social media and conspiracy beliefs, and interventions. In addition to the empirical papers, three commentaries are included in this special issue.

The mediating role of scientifical-medical satisfaction between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and vaccine confidence: a two-waves structural equation model.

Vaccine confidence has emerged as one of the most relevant psychological factors implied in the worldwide affecting the fight against COVID-19-as well as public trust in doctors, medicine, and science. Indeed, the vaccine confidence is crucial to maximize the trust in vaccines and their use for prevention, with several implications for public health. This study aimed to analyse the relationships among between vaccine confidence, conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19, and satisfaction with science and medicine in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. A longitudinal observational survey was administered to a convenience sample (n = 544; mean age 52.76 y.o., SD = 15.11; females 46.69%) from the Italian general population. A two-waves mediation model-a structural equation model technique-was used. The survey was part of a larger international project ( https://osf.io/qy65b/ ). The model highlighted that the conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 had a negative effect on the satisfaction with medicine and science (ß = - 0.13, se = 0.03, p < .001). The latter, in turn, had a positive effect on vaccine confidence (ß = 0.10, se = .05, p < .001). Interestingly, the effect of conspiracy beliefs on vaccine confidence was completely mediated by the scientifical-medical satisfaction (ß = - 0.02, se = 0.01, p < .05). These results highlight how the scientifical-medical satisfaction can fully mediate the relationship between conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and vaccine confidence. These findings about vaccine hesitancy and confidence and disclose have implications for psychological and social interventions that could promote vaccine confidence by targeting the satisfaction with science and medicine.

Doubt in store: vaccine hesitancy among grocery workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The objective of this study was to assess the influence of workplace safety conditions alongside the World Health Organization's model of the "3 Cs", on grocery store workers' vaccine hesitancy concerning COVID-19. Data for this study come from the Arizona Frontline Workers Survey, a longitudin web-based survey of 770 grocery store workers in the state of Arizona (US) collected in July 2020 and January 2021. We utilized ordinary least squares and multinomial logistic regression analyses to assess predictors of hesitancy at our Wave 2. Thirty-nine percent of our sample reported being unlikely to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Two aspects of the "3 Cs" model, confidence and convenience, were correlated with lower levels of vaccine hesitancy while the perceptions of being protected by one's employer increased hesitancy. Our findings underscore the importance of workplace conditions for vaccine hesitancy and the need to include vaccine messaging in employers' safety practices.

Scaling up the discovery of hesitancy profiles by identifying the framing of beliefs towards vaccine confidence in Twitter discourse.

Our study focused on the discovery of how vaccine hesitancy is framed in Twitter discourse, allowing us to recognize at-scale all tweets that evoke any of the hesitancy framings as well as the stance of the tweet authors towards the frame. By categorizing the hesitancy framings that propagate misinformation, address issues of trust in vaccines, or highlight moral issues or civil rights, we were able to empirically recognize their ontological commitments. Ontological commitments of vaccine hesitancy framings couples with the stance of tweet authors allowed us to identify hesitancy profiles for two most controversial yet effective and underutilized vaccines for which there remains substantial reluctance among the public: the Human Papillomavirus and the COVID-19 vaccines. The discovered hesitancy profiles inform public health messaging approaches to effectively reach Twitter users with promise to shift or bolster vaccine attitudes.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected general vaccination hesitancy? Findings from a national study.

Extensive media coverage and potential controversy about COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic may have affected people's general attitudes towards vaccination. We sought to describe key psychological antecedents related to vaccination and assess how these vary temporally in relationship to the pandemic and availability of COVID-19 vaccination. As part of an ongoing online study, we recruited a national (U.S.) sample of young gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (N = 1,227) between October 2019 and June 2021, and assessed the "4Cs" (antecedents of vaccination; range = 1-5). Overall, men had high levels of confidence (trust in vaccines; M = 4.13), calculation (deliberation; M = 3.97) and collective responsibility (protecting others; M = 4.05) and low levels of complacency (not perceiving disease risk; M = 1.72). In multivariable analyses, confidence and collective responsibility varied relative to the pandemic phase/vaccine availability, reflecting greater hesitancy during later stages of the pandemic. Antecedents also varied by demographic characteristics. Findings suggest negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on key antecedents of general vaccination and identify potential targets for interventions.

Factors Associated with Vaccine Hesitancy in the State of Alaska.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a major public health problem which includes not only concerns about vaccine, but often includes beliefs not aligned with evidence. The etiology of VH is complicate, including genuine concerns about vaccine safety to beliefs in disproven or unsubstantiated theories. Understanding VH includes determining the factors associated with people most likely to be susceptible. OBJECTIVES: To identify characteristics of persons more likely to have VH based on perceived vaccine safety. DESIGN: We conducted a cross sectional, targeted online survey of 1,024 respondents. METHODS: The survey collected data on demographics and vaccine beliefs. A seven-question VH scale was created based on an extensive literature review. When measured, this scale had high internal validity based on Cronbach's Alpha (α = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.79, 0.82) and provided a continuous measurement to understand the VH degree. RESULTS: Persons reporting a conservative political ideology had the highest VH score ([Formula: see text] = 15.0), followed by other ([Formula: see text] =12.7), moderate ([Formula: see text] =9.29), and liberal ([Formula: see text] =6.72). Education level was another strong indicator of VH, decreasing from the highest score of high school graduates ( [Formula: see text] = 13.2) to graduate degree holders ([Formula: see text] = 9.22). CONCLUSION: The more conservative a person's political ideology, the higher the VHS. We asked for ideology, rather than political party, although they are related, they are not the same. Ideology influences more domains than voting patterns. Higher educational attainment shows a protective effect against VH. These findings have direct implication for public health interventions, new interventions should be designed to be more accessible for persons with less formal education and more amenable to persons who hold a more conservative ideology.

Childhood Vaccination Practices and Parental Hesitancy Barriers in Rural and Urban Primary Care Settings.

The purpose of our study was to identify primary care providers' (PCPs') practices in promoting childhood vaccination and their perceptions regarding barriers to vaccination in a primarily rural state. In January-May 2022, we conducted a mail and online survey of PCPs across Montana (n = 829). The survey included modules on routine immunizations in children 0-2 years old and COVID-19 vaccination in children 5-17 years old. The survey response rate was 36% (298/829). We categorized PCPs as working in rural (n = 218) or urban areas (n = 80), based on Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. We then compared responses between rural and urban PCPs using chi-square tests. Urban PCPs (90-94%, depending on vaccine) stocked routinely recommended vaccines more frequently than rural PCPs (71-84%), but stocked the COVID-19 vaccine less often than rural PCPs (44% vs. 71%, respectively, p < 0.001). A higher percentage of rural providers reported parental beliefs that vaccine-preventable diseases are not severe enough to warrant vaccination (48% vs. 31%, p = 0.01) and concerns that vaccination will weaken their child's immune system (29% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). More rural (74%) compared to urban (59%) PCPs identified a social media campaign from local health departments promoting early childhood vaccinations as an effective strategy to increase childhood vaccination rates (p = 0.01). We identified key differences in some childhood vaccination practices and barriers between rural and urban PCPs. Interventions to increase rural vaccination rates could include increasing the number of providers stocking all recommended vaccines, identifying strategies to address parents' concerns regarding vaccine necessity, and collaborations with public health departments.