Search

Introduction: Acceptance of recommended vaccines is lower among pregnant people compared to non-pregnant adults, yet no tool has specifically measured prenatal vaccine hesitancy. We evaluated the performance of an existing adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS) in measuring vaccine hesitancy toward routinely recommended prenatal vaccines., Methods: Between December 2021 and April 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional national online survey with 917 US postpartum adults 18-49 years old who had given birth in the past six months. Vaccine hesitancy was measured using the aVHS, a 10-item scale previously validated among the adult general population. Scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating greater vaccine hesitancy. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with weighted least squares means and variances adjusted (WLSMV) estimator was used to assess the fit of the aVHS structure. Construct validity was assessed by examining the correlation between the aVHS score and the self-reported receipt of recommended prenatal vaccines., Results: SEM indicated acceptable fit (RMSEA: 0.098; CFI: 0.983; TLI: 0.978; SRMR: 0.040) of the data to the two-factor model: (1) lack of vaccine confidence, and (2) perceived vaccine risks. For the paths from the two factors to the vaccine acceptance, lack of vaccine confidence was significantly correlated with influenza vaccine acceptance (β = -0.41, p < 0.001) and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (β = -0.64, p < 0.001), while perceived vaccine risk was significantly linked with Tdap vaccine acceptance (β = -0.57, p < 0.001) and influenza vaccine acceptance (β = -0.25, p < 0.001). Additionally, pregnant people with higher aVHS scores were less likely to receive recommended prenatal vaccines., Discussion: Although the aVHS offered acceptable measurement of prenatal vaccine hesitancy, a scale that measures pregnancy-specific concerns may offer more tailored measurement for this unique population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Annette K. Regan reports membership on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Moderna TX, Inc. unrelated to the current manuscript. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Vaccine refusal or delay remains a significant public health concern, leading to lower vaccination rates and increasing the risk of preventable diseases., Patients and Methods: The study included 404 mothers and 413 children, assessing vaccination coverage and conducting telephone interviews with mothers who declined vaccines to understand their reasons., Results: Children of mothers who supported vaccination were more likely to be fully immunized compared to those with hesitant mothers. Among the incompletely vaccinated or unvaccinated children, 73.08% had mothers from the hesitant group (GNV). However, 90.05% of hesitant mothers still vaccinated their children with all recommended vaccines, while 9.95% maintained their refusal. Only 3.22% of the total sample, all from the GNV group, refused vaccination entirely. The primary reasons for refusal included fear of side effects, lack of trust in vaccines or the healthcare system, negative vaccination experiences, and influence from media or social platforms., Conclusion: While vaccination behaviors may improve as a child grows, a significant proportion of hesitant parents continue to exist across different population groups, contributing to suboptimal vaccination coverage rates. The consistent implementation of unified, nationwide strategies aimed at increasing trust in vaccines and the vaccination process is essential for achieving protective vaccination rates., (Copyright © 2025, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted Vaccine Hesitancy (VH) as an accelerating global phenomenon that must be addressed. According to the WHO, thirty to fifty percent of the world's population are VH. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based communication style demonstrated to significantly reduce VH. MI guides people toward change through the expression of empathy and by respecting an individual's autonomy. Healthcare providers (HCPs) are the primary implementors of vaccine policies and the most trusted advisors and influencers of vaccination intention at the individual patient level. Training HCPs in MI is one of the most effective strategies to overcome VH. Many countries are currently implementing HCP training programs and population-based MI interventions to improve vaccine uptake. MI conversations are 'the heart' of vaccine decision-making processes. Understanding individual patient-level drivers of hesitancy allows clinicians to efficiently provide tailored, accurate information that reinforces a person's own motivation and confidence in their own decision. This paper describes a 4-step practical framework designed to support HCPs in their dialogue with vaccine-hesitant patients. (1) Engaging to establish a trustful relationship and safety to freely express opinions, beliefs, and knowledge gaps; (2) Understanding what matters most to the individual; (3) Offering Information to co-build accurate knowledge in order to guide the individual toward vaccine intention (4) Clarifying and Accepting to validate an individual's decision-making autonomy. We believe that our pragmatic approach can contribute to greater acceptability of COVID-19 and other vaccines, and enable rapid deployment of practical MI skills across care systems.

Understanding the communication dynamics between vaccine-hesitant parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is vital for addressing parent concerns and promoting informed decision-making. This paper focuses on strategies used by HCPs to communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents. It draws on empirical evidence generated as part of the international project VAX-TRUST. More specifically, 60 hours of observations were carried out in three different pediatric practices during vaccination-related visits, and 19 physicians and nurses were interviewed. We focused on the specific context of the Czech Republic, which represents a country with a mandatory vaccination system and in which children's immunization is the responsibility of pediatric general practitioners. We demonstrate that the dynamics between parents and HCPs and their willingness to invest time in the vaccination discussion are influenced by how HCPs categorize and label parents. Furthermore, we outline some of the different strategies HCPs employ while addressing concerns regarding vaccination. We identified two different strategies HCPs use to manage the fears of vaccine-hesitant parents. The first strategy focused on the communication of risks associated with vaccination (and lack thereof). HCPs used a variety of discursive practices to familiarize the unfamiliar risks of vaccine-preventable diseases (by mobilizing representations that are part of collective memory, incorporating personal experiences to materialize the presence of risk and the confidence in the safety of vaccines and by situating risk as embedded in everyday processes and integral to the uncertainty of the global world). The second strategy involved the conscious employment of medical procedures that may contribute to reducing vaccination fears.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine coverage for all recommended vaccines for children under five years residing in Statistical Areas Level 3 (SA3). SA3 groupings represent clustering groups of smaller areas, such as regional towns and cities or clusters of related suburbs, which share similar regional characteristics, administrative boundaries or labour markets, and generally have populations between 30,000 and 130,000 persons., Methods: We used parental vaccine hesitancy data from the VBAT (Vaccine Barrier Assessment Tool) study and vaccine coverage by postcode data from the Australian Immunisation Coverage Report 2020/21. Binary logistic regression analysis explored the association., Results: There were complete data for 1110 participants. We found lower vaccine concerns in parents residing in medium coverage (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.36, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.22 to 0.59) and high coverage (aOR 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.22 to 0.60) SA3 areas compared to low coverage geographical areas., Conclusions: Developing effective policies to vaccinate children under five in low coverage areas will help reduce vaccine inequity in Australia. Future strategies to improve vaccine coverage should consider ways to address both access and acceptance barriers., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JT is an investigator on a project grant sponsored by Industry. Her institution has received funding from Industry (GlaxoSmithKline) for investigator-led research. She does not receive any personal payments from Industry. The other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To analyze vaccine hesitancy associated factors and repercussions on vaccination coverage., Methods: Cohort of children born in 2017-2018, living in Brazilian state capitals, Federal District (FD), and 12 inner region cities, stratified by socioeconomic level. National Vaccination Coverage Survey (2020) data on hesitancy, access and programmatic difficulties were obtained by interview and coverage was calculated from vaccination card dose and date records., Results: 37801 children were studied, 31001 in the capitals/FD, 6800 in the inner cities. Hesitation between 38.8(95%CI 33.6;44.4) and 57.9(95%CI 54.1;61.6) in high versus low stratum; 64.1(95%CI 58.9;68.9) to 41.7(95%CI 38.4;45.8) among mothers with <8 years of schooling versus 16 years or more; 42.1(95%CI 38.2;46.2) to 55.0(95%CI 52.0;54.7) among private service users versus public service only users. Coverage: full=7.2(95%CI 1.0;38.3); 25.3(95%CI 18.7;33.3) for hesitant people; and 44.7(95%CI 43.0;46.4) for the remainder., Conclusion: High vaccine hesitancy in several groups affecting vaccination coverage and hindering vaccination target achievement. Access problems and programmatic difficulties contribute to low coverage.

Objective: To analyze vaccination coverage and factors associated with incomplete vaccination in inland municipalities of Northeastern Brazil., Methods: This was a household survey using cluster sampling conducted in Vitória da Conquista, Bahia state, Caruaru, Pernambuco state, Sobral, Ceará state and Imperatriz, Maranhão state between 2020 and 2022. Vaccination coverage by valid doses and vaccine hesitancy were analyzed, with the odds ratio (OR) estimated and adjusted using logistic regression., Results: Among 1,847 children, complete vaccination coverage was 49.2% (95%CI 43.9;54.5). Factors associated with incomplete vaccination included: higher income (OR 1.53; 95%CI 1.02;2.31), residence in Sobral (OR 4.35; 95%CI 3.04; 6.21) and >1 child (OR 1.20; 95%CI 1.11;1.32). Parental decision not to vaccinate and difficulties in traveling to vaccination centers contributed to vaccine hesitancy., Conclusion: Low vaccination coverage and incomplete vaccination were associated with social issues in the socioeconomic strata analyzed.

Background: Vaccination is one of the most important public health interventions to combat infectious disease. However, vaccine hesitancy prevents us reaching the global target of vaccine uptake (e.g., 75 % of influenza vaccination in at-risk groups). This review summarises all interventions designed to reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake for all types of vaccines offered to adults (≥18 years) since 2000, in the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL EBSCO, and Scopus were searched (September 19, 2023). The PRISMA Checklist 2020 was used for quality checking. Data from randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed with a meta-analysis and narrative analysis. In all included studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarise, evaluate and characterisethe reported behaviour change interventions into four categories: organisational-level, public demand, provider-level, and multidimensional interventions. Findings are evaluated based on the MINDSPACE framework to understand the possible psychological mechanisms underpinning the interventions., Findings: A total of 9,842 articles were identified, 50 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions aimed to boost vaccine uptake or reduce hesitancy of influenza (50 %), COVID-19 (32 %), hepatitis B (6 %), and other vaccines. A meta-analysis was conducted for nine RCTs evaluating various interventions impact on vaccine uptake. The pooled effect was statistically significant (OR with 95 % CI = 1.23 [1.07 to 1.41]). Providing certain and understandableinformation and using a reminder system with personal messages or letters were the most frequently documented and effective interventions to enhance public demand (enhance information salience). Organisational level interventions intended to make vaccinations more accessible (e.g., providing vaccination at alternative places or times). Provider-oriented interventions encouraged healthcare workers to focus on reducing vaccine hesitancy or enhancing vaccine uptake., Interpretation: Among the main MINDSPACE techniques, enhancing the salience of vaccine information and priming vaccination by improving access were identified as the most applied and effective interventions in the UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar reports financial support was provided by Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper]., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate vaccination coverage, identify barriers and hesitancy to vaccinating children up to 24 months, born between 2017-2018, living in the urban area of Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil., Methods: Population survey carried out from 2020 to 2021, which assessed sociodemographic characteristics and vaccination status among children., Results: Among 451 included children, vaccination coverage was below 80%. Meningococcal C vaccine had the lowest coverage for administered doses (76.3%; 95%CI 70.5;81.3) and doses on time (27.4%; 95%CI 23.1;32.1). The statements "vaccines cause serious adverse reactions" (26.4%; 95%CI 18.1;36.8) and "you don't need vaccination for diseases that no longer exist" (22%; 95%CI 15.7;29.8) were the most frequent regarding vaccination hesitancy. Lack of vaccines was the main barrier to care (86.6%; 95%CI 71.8;94.3)., Conclusion: Vaccination coverage in children born in 2017-2018 was below the target recommended for the full schedule of administered doses, both valid and timely administered.

Background: Although pneumococcal vaccine is recommended for everyone 65 years of age and older, only 58% of Canadians in this age group have been vaccinated, well below the Public Health Agency of Canada's target of 80%. To improve uptake, a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention was developed., Objective: This prespecified sub-study aimed to uncover and quantify factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy by exploring the nature of patient-pharmacist conversations about pneumococcal vaccine., Methods: Beginning each month (April- August 2023), participating pharmacies were randomly selected to receive an education package designed to enhance pharmacists' knowledge, skills, and abilities in promoting pneumococcal vaccination. Pharmacists provided usual care (control stage) until they received the educational package and transitioned to the intervention stage. Weekly scorecards tracked patient-pharmacist conversations about pneumococcal vaccination. Chi-squared tests compared time taken for each conversation and patient-reported reason(s) for refusal between control and intervention stages., Results: Thirteen pharmacies from across Alberta were included in the analysis, reporting 656 patient-pharmacist conversations (control stage n = 271, intervention stage n = 385). Time taken for pneumococcal vaccine conversations decreased after pharmacies received the education package (65% of conversations resulting in vaccination took <20 minutes in the control stage, compared to 88% in the intervention stage [P = 0.004]). The most common patient-reported reason for refusal, needing more time to think about the vaccine, remained similar between stages (P = 0.23). However, during the intervention stage, fewer patients refused vaccination due to lack of time to receive it today (P = 0.016) and perceived lack of benefit (P = 0.035), but more patients refused vaccination due to cost barriers (P = 0.026)., Conclusion: The education provided in this study changed the reasons for refusing vaccines, suggesting the nature of patient-pharmacist conversations became more efficient and informed. Similar interventions could be adopted across Canada and the United States to help combat vaccine hesitancy., Competing Interests: Disclosure The author declares no relevant conflicts of interest or financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has been a major contributor to large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases globally, including in the United States., Methods: Data from the 2019-2022 National Immunization Surveys were analyzed to assess parental hesitancy toward routine vaccination of their children aged 6 months -17 years. Joinpoint regression was employed to investigate trends in VH from 2019 to 2022 nationally overall and among socio-demographic subgroups. Using logistic regression, the difference between the prevalence of VH before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months-4 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years was computed. Both unadjusted and adjusted estimates were reported. VH was also compared within each socio-demographic subgroup with a reference level, at two-time points- before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for each age group., Results: Overall, VH remained around 19.0 % from Q2 2019 to Q3 2022. Parents of non-Hispanic Black children had the largest average quarterly decrease in VH (β = -0.55; p < 0.05 by test for trend). After the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months to 4 years, the adjusted percentage of children having parents that reported VH decreased by 2.2 (95 % CI: -3.9, -0.6) percentage points (pp) from 21.6 % to 19.4 %. Conversely, for children aged 5-11 years, VH increased by 1.2 (95 % CI: 0.2, 2.3) pp, from 19.8 % to 21.0 %. VH among parents of non-Hispanic Black children decreased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 12-17 years but remained significantly higher compared to parents of non-Hispanic White children before and after authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for all age groups., Discussion: About 1 in 5 children had parents reporting VH from 2019 to 2022. Parental VH increased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years and declined for children aged 6 months-4 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Vaccine hesitancy threatens to reverse the progress in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. We used an $ SIS $ model with a game theory model for vaccination and parameters from the COVID-19 pandemic to study how vaccine hesitancy impacts epidemic dynamics. The system showed three asymptotic behaviors: total rejection of vaccinations, complete acceptance, and oscillations. With increasing fear of infection, stable endemic states become periodic oscillations. Our results suggest that managing fear of infection relative to vaccination is vital to successful mass vaccinations.

There are more than 207 types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV), most of which do not cause symptoms, lesions, or warts, and cause more than 600,000 cases of cancer annually. Purpose:This study was planned to elucidate the relationship between individuals' HPV knowledge, attitudes towards the HPV vaccine, and vaccine hesitancy. The research was conducted with 1011 people using a descriptive and correlational research design. Data collection tools included socio-demographic information survey, HPV Knowledge Scale, Carolina HPV Vaccination Attitudes Scale, and Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. The data was analyzed using the SPSS 26.0 package program. The average score was 11.68±7.23 on the HPV Knowledge Scale, 30.76±7.31 on the HPV Vaccine Attitude Scale, and 27.90±11.10 on the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. While there was a very weak negative relationship between the participants HPV knowledge and HPV Vaccine Attitude scores, a weak positive relationship was found with vaccine hesitancy. A weak positive relationship was also detected between vaccine attitude and vaccine hesitancy (p<0.05). According to the regression model created in the study, HPV vaccination attitude was explained by the HPV Knowledge Scale and vaccine hesitancy at a rate of 22.5%. In line with the results, healthcare professionals need to raise awareness in the society and increase vaccination rates., Competing Interests: The Authors declared no conflict of interest, (African Journal of Reproductive Health © 2024.)

Introduction: The COVID vaccination program with new types of vaccinations and early reports of allergic reactions to vaccines led to vaccination hesitancy in patients with allergies. In this study, we aimed to characterize patients who present at an allergy center with specific questions regarding risk assessment to COVID vaccines in comparison to regular allergy center patients., Methods: A total of 50 patient charts of patients with risk assessment for COVID vaccination (COV group) and 50 regular allergy center patients (ALL group) were assessed for documented allergies, comorbidities, total IgE, and tryptase levels and hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS). Skin prick testing (SPT) with additives of COVID vaccines [polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate] were performed if indicated based on medical history., Results: Patients who presented for examination prior to a possible COVID vaccination were mostly female (86%) and had more frequently reported allergic reactions to drugs in the past, but only in a minor group (28%) were the reactions qualified as anaphylaxis. The group COV patients scored significantly higher in the HADS for anxiety and depression than the regular group ALL patients. The same trend was observed when data were corrected for gender. It is worth noting that patients without any prior contact to COVID vaccines scored comparable regarding anxiety to patients with prior reaction to COVID vaccinations, but significantly higher in the depression score. In 19 patients (38%) who met the indications for SPT for the suspicious contents PEG and Polysorbate 80, the tests did not show a positive result. Furthermore, 84% of patients underwent the prick test, but only 15% of patients who received consultation alone agreed to vaccination at our center. No vaccination-related event was documented in these patients., Discussion: In conclusion, vaccination hesitancy was frequently elicited by negative experiences with drugs and putative drug allergies. Female patients predominate in this patient group, and the anxiety and depression scores were significantly elevated. Allergological workup, including SPT, led to a high rate of subsequent vaccinations, whereas a discussion with the patients about risks and individualized advice for vaccination without testing only rarely resulted in documented vaccinations., Competing Interests: SA has conducted studies for/was advisor for/was speaker for AstraZeneca, Allakos, ALK, Biocryst, Blueprint, CSLBehring, LeoPharma, Moxie, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda, Thermofisher. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Kogseder, Puxkandl, Hoetzenecker and Altrichter.)

Objective: Vaccine hesitancy is a primary factor that influences vaccine uptake; however, no specific measurement tool to accurately assess vaccine hesitancy is available in China. This study aimed to develop a general vaccine hesitancy scale for childhood immunization., Methods: We adopted a three-phase process with nine steps to develop and finalize our scale. The scale framework and initial item pool were determined by a literature review. Expert consultation and cognitive interviews with parents were conducted to evaluate content validity. Questionnaire surveys involving parents of children aged <6 years were conducted to select items. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed to identify and validate the scale factor structure. The scale's reliability and validity were assessed using multiple indicators., Results: Of the initial 38 items, 21 were retained after expert consultation and cognitive interviews. In survey 1, the number of scale items decreased to 16 following item analysis and EFA. In survey 2, four items were added and EFA identified four factors. In survey 3, CFA confirmed the four-factor structure and the reliability indicators were satisfactory for the total scale. The level of vaccine hesitancy assessed by our scale was positively associated with vaccination refusal behavior and the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale score. The final scale comprised four dimensions (confidence, complacency, convenience, and calculation) with 17 items., Conclusions: We developed a validated and reliable measurement to assess vaccine hesitancy among parents of children, which promises to be suitable for wide use in China., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Vaccine hesitancy has been described as any delay or refusal of vaccines despite their availability and is increasing in Australia and other middle to high-income countries. The aim of this study is to gain a deep understanding of the experiences and influences on vaccine hesitant children and their families. A qualitative interview approach was undertaken with vaccine hesitant parents and pregnant women ( n  = 12). Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken on data obtained using the guidelines of Braun and Clarke. Three main themes were identified in this study, including Pushed to the fringe; A culture of Distrust; and Coerced choices. The study revealed that vaccine hesitant parents felt isolated and pushed to the fringe of society. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the Australian "No Jab - No Pay" and "No Jab - No Play" legislation. This contributed to feelings of marginalization. Participants also cited a breakdown in the therapeutic relationships, which impacted their child's health. Additionally, a lack of sufficient information was received to achieve informed consent. These results suggest that there is a need for enhanced education for some health-care professionals, many of whom have reported being confronted by conversations with vaccine hesitant parents.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Turkey, which can aid future health policies and strategies. A comprehensive search was conducted on various databases using keywords related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies. Data extraction was conducted. The random effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used in pooled prevalence data analysis (95% confidence interval [CI]). A total of 1,072 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and excluding articles, 61 articles remained for bias assessment. Among these, 19 articles with low risk of bias were included in the review and meta-analysis. Total population included in the analysis was 15,164, vaccine hesitancy was 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3-36.8%). Prevalence of the vaccine hesitancy was found to be 39.8% (95% Cl: 31.4-48.2%) in studies conducted before the initiation of vaccination, while in studies conducted after the commencement of vaccination, hesitancy was 20.4% (95% Cl: 12.9-28%). We suggest conducting high-quality studies in different populations to understand the level of vaccine hesitancy, as many of the previous studies have mainly focused on healthcare workers and students, and rest were community-based studies, which have generally shown high bias. Also, we suggest that early vaccination can reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Resistance to vaccines has hindered attempts to contain and prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases for centuries. More recently, however, the term "vaccine hesitancy" has been used to describe not necessarily outright resistance but also a delay in acceptance or uncertainty regarding vaccines. Given concerns about hesitancy and its impact on vaccine uptake rates, researchers increasingly shifted the focus from resistance to vaccines toward vaccine hesitancy. Acknowledging the urgency to accurately assess the phenomenon, it is critical to understand the state of the literature, focusing on issues of conceptualization and operationalization. To carry out this systematic review, we collected and analyzed all published empirical articles from 2000 to 2021 that explicitly included quantitative self-report measures of vaccine hesitancy ( k  = 86). Using a mixed-method approach, the review demonstrates and quantifies crucial inconsistencies in the measurement of the construct, lack of clarity in regard to the determination of who should or should not be defined as hesitant, and overreliance on unrepresentative samples. Crucially, our analysis points to a potential systematic bias toward exaggerating the level of hesitancy in the population. Modeling a vaccine hesitancy co-citation network, the analysis also points to the existence of insular academic silos that make it harder to achieve a unified measurement tool. Theoretical and practical implications for academics, practitioners, and policymakers are discussed.

Vaccine hesitancy, defined by the WHO as reluctance or refusal to vaccinate, despite the availability of vaccines, threatens to undermine progress in tackling vaccine-preventable disease. In this Immunology Futures article, I explore my experiences of combating vaccine hesitancy, and how research in this area can help. The graphic was made with assets from Freepik.com., (© 2023 the Australian and New Zealand Society for Immunology, Inc.)

The development of vaccines is considered one of the greatest breakthroughs of modern medicine, saving millions of lives around the world each year. Despite vaccines' proven success, vaccine hesitancy remains a major issue affecting vaccine uptake. Common themes exist in patients' apprehension to receive vaccines. Women's health providers possess an important role in addressing these concerns and dispelling common misconceptions that may increase vaccine hesitancy thereby reduce vaccine uptake. This review aims to explore many of these topics as they are related to women's health and provide strategies for providers to implement which may reduce vaccine hesitancy among our patients., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Strategies for reducing vaccine hesitancy and negative attitudes toward vaccination and measures to accurately assess them have been developed worldwide. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) and Vaccination Attitudes Examination Scale (VAX) are reliable and valid tools. This study evaluates the validity and reliability of the Korean versions of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (K-VHS) and Vaccination Attitudes Examination Scale (K-VAX)., Methods: We translated the VHS and VAX into Korean using forward and backward translations and tested their psychometric attributes. We collected data from a sample of 2,292 Koreans, recruited in June 2021 from a large online panel using quotas for age and gender. We used content validity, construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis, concurrent validity, and convergent validity to assess the validity of the scales, and tested their reliability with evaluations of internal consistency and stability., Results: The K-VHS and K-VAX showed good model fits in the validity tests, with seven items for one factor and 12 items for four factors, respectively. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94 for the K-VHS, and 0.86 for the K-VAX) and stability (ICC = 0.86 for the K-VHS, and 0.88 for the K-VAX) of the measures indicated that they are reliable., Conclusions: Both tools are effective psychometric instruments for assessing vaccine hesitancy and vaccination attitudes in Korean adults. K-VHS and K-VAX would be useful for predicting vaccination behaviors in novel infectious disease contexts and communicating the evidence needed to develop related policies or programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Vaccine hesitancy is an increasing global health threat, and to improve vaccine uptake, it is critical to account for identity-based considerations including racial and ethnic, religious, and contemporary socio-political identities. Using critical consciousness to create awareness of the diverse cultural viewpoints on vaccines can help providers have conversations that are identity aware, equity-focused, and linguistically sensitive with their patients. It is necessary to collaborate with patients, families, communities, and community leaders to share information about vaccines, their safety profiles, and on how to have vaccines readily accessible in each community, to protect children and adolescents against vaccine preventable illnesses., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Technology holds great potential to address many vaccine hesitancy determinants and support vaccine uptake given its ability to amplify positive messages, support knowledge, and enhance providers' recommendations. Modalities previously implemented with variable success have included automated reminder systems, decision support for clinicians, online education programs, social media campaigns, and virtual reality curricula. Further research is needed to identify the optimal uses of technology at the patient/parent and provider levels to overcome vaccine hesitancy. The most effective interventions will likely be multipronged providing patients, parents, and providers with information related to vaccine status., Competing Interests: Disclosure None of the authors have any commercial or financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are several factors that influence childhood vaccine uptake. Pediatric clinicians play a particularly influential role in parent vaccine decision-making. It is critical therefore that pediatric clinicians have a "communication toolbox"--a set of effective, evidence-based communication strategies to facilitate uptake of childhood vaccines--that they can use in conversations with parents about vaccines. In this article, recent advances in our understanding of what constitutes effective clinician vaccine communication with parents are discussed., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore determinants of Hib-combined vaccine hesitancy in Chinese parents, and to provide scientific intervention measures to tackle vaccine hesitancy., Methods: 2,531 parents were recruited from local healthcare centers in Zhejiang Province by accidental sampling, and completed the self-developed online questionnaire with voluntary participation. Health Belief Model and Model of Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy were applied to construct the framework of research. Multi-group Structural Equation Modeling was performed to explore the effects of determinants of vaccine hesitancy across various socio-economic status (SES)., Results: Hib-combined vaccine hesitancy for total sample was 2.184 ± 0.777 (95%CI: 2.153-2.214), and most of them were in low (n = 1436, 56.7%) level. Low SES group (2.335 ± 0.763, 95%CI: 2.271-2.400) had significantly highest vaccine hesitancy. For total sample, Self-Efficacy and Cues to Action presented -0.517 and -0.437 of standard total effect on Vaccine Hesitancy, respectively. The Multi-group Structural Equation Model with satisfying goodness of fit in SES groups ( χ 2  = 1616.074, df = 314, χ 2 /df = 5.147, CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.966, SRMR = 0.027, RMSEA = 0.041) showed that Cues to Action imposed -0.621 (95%CI: -0.867-0.389, p  < .001) of major standard total effect on Vaccine Hesitancy in low SES group, while Self-Efficacy imposed -0.560 (95%CI: -0.668-0.444, p  < .001) and -0.685 (95%CI: -0.841-0.454, p  < .001) of principal standard total effect on Vaccine Hesitancy in middle and high SES groups, respectively., Conclusions: Hib-combined vaccine hesitancy in Chinese parents was low, and the lower the SES, the higher the vaccine hesitancy. Cues to Action and Self-Efficacy played primary role in declining vaccine hesitancy for parents at low SES, and at middle and high SES, respectively.

We sought to assess COVID-19 vaccination rates, as well as attitudes and beliefs towards the vaccine, of patients in a Spanish-speaking student-run free clinic in Columbus, Ohio. A cross-sectional study was performed. Surveys were distributed to all individuals over 18 years who presented to La Clínica Latina between July, 2022 and September, 2022. A convenience sample was used: patients in the waiting room and their accompanying family members or friends were invited to participate. Subjects were excluded if under the age of 18 or over the age of 75, or if non-Spanish speaking. Of the 158 individuals who agreed to participate in our study, 146 responded to the question regarding vaccination status, revealing 90.4% of respondents had received a COVID-19 vaccination. Most respondents learned about the vaccine from social media (26.4%) or television (22.7%). The majority of participants sought answers to questions surrounding the vaccine by asking their doctor (49.1%). The most common reason among unvaccinated participants for not undergoing vaccination was fear of an adverse reaction to the vaccine (n = 11). We found that a large proportion (90.4%) of individuals seeking care at a Spanish-speaking free clinic were vaccinated against COVID-19. Our study also provides perspective on the means of health knowledge acquisition and behaviors in this predominantly Latinx patient population in central Ohio. We can utilize our results to optimize and tailor clinic services and initiatives for COVID-19 boosters to meet the needs of this community., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

This article employs a sociological and dialogical information perspective to identify what shape information literacy practice takes for people who are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. An information perspective places information and people's relations with information at the centre of the inquiry. The study carried out 14 semi-structured interviews with UK adults who had not yet received or taken up their invitation to have the COVID-19 vaccine. Outcomes of this study suggest that information literacy practices related to vaccine hesitancy emerged through the liminal space and in relation to agentic performance, which was catalysed through engagement with experiential, corporeal and social information. This study has implications for the teaching of information literacy, in particular, the idea that being informed is an affirmative action that will automatically empower learners to make appropriate choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Believing conspiracy narratives is frequently assumed to be a major cause of vaccine hesitancy, i.e., the tendency to forgo vaccination despite its availability. In this scoping review, we synthesise and critically evaluate studies that assess i) the occurrence of vaccine-related conspiracy narratives on the internet, ii) the prevalence of belief in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives, iii) the relationship between belief in conspiracy narratives and vaccination intention or vaccination uptake, and iv) interventions that reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives on vaccination intention. In July 2022, we conducted a literature search using three databases: PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. Following the PRISMA approach, of the 500 initially identified articles, 205 were eligible and analysed. The majority of identified studies were conducted in Europe and North America, were published in 2021 and 2022, and investigated conspiracy narratives around the COVID-19 vaccination. The prevalence of belief in various vaccine-related conspiracy narratives varied greatly across studies, from 2 to 77%. We identified seven experimental studies investigating the effect of exposure to conspiracy narratives on vaccination intentions, of which six indicated a small negative effect. These findings are complemented by the evidence from over 100 correlative studies showing a significant negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intention or uptake. Additionally, the review identified interventions (e.g., social norm feedback, fact-checking labels, or prebunking) that decreased beliefs in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives and, in some cases, also increased vaccination intentions. Yet, these interventions had only small effects. In summary, the review revealed that vaccine-related conspiracy narratives have spread to varying degrees and can influence vaccination decisions. Causal relationships between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions remain underexplored. Further, the review identified a need for more research on interventions that can reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence for the validity and reliability of the World Health Organization's 10-item vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) in different settings is not sufficient, especially for criteria validity. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the VHS using child vaccination data in China. A cross-sectional survey was performed with parents of 19-48-month-old children at six vaccination clinics in Wuxi City between September and October 2020. The VHS was revised to category A (expanded program on immunization, EPI) VHS and category B (Non-EPI) VHS. Factor analysis was used to confirm the latent domain and to assess the model structure. The average variance extracted (AVE) was calculated to assess convergent validity, and Cronbach's α and composite reliability (CR) were used to determine internal consistency. The association between VHS scores and children's vaccination status was examined to assess criteria validity using logistic regression. The survey response rate was 75.3% (n = 802). Two factors were identified, explaining 64.60% and 63.34% of the common variance in categories A and B VHS, respectively. The Cronbach's α of > 0.7 and CR of >0.7 in the scale indicated the VHS has acceptable internal consistency. The AVE values indicated that convergent validity was not ideal for the VHS. There were no statistically significant associations between VHS scores and vaccination status, indicating that the criterion validity was not ideal. The VHS needs improvement before becoming a standard survey tool.

Vaccine hesitancy is an important factor underpinning suboptimal vaccine uptake and evidence on marginalized subgroups, such as refugees, is limited. This cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2020/21 with former refugee parents who resettled in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). The Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) was offered in Somali, Oromo, Arabic, and English languages, and the reliability of the four versions were evaluated. The prevalence of parental vaccine hesitancy was explored and the association between vaccine hesitancy and sociodemographic factors was examined using logistic regression. One hundred and seventy-eight responses were included in the analysis. The Cronbach's alpha scores for Somali, Oromo, Arabic, and English PACV were 0.89, 0.64, 0.53, and 0.77, respectively. The rate of parental vaccine hesitancy was 16.3%, 95% CI (10.7, 21.3). Most caregivers were concerned about vaccine side effects (47%), safety (43%), and efficacy (40%). Less than a quarter (21%) of parents had delayed their child receiving a vaccine and 12% had refused to vaccinate their child for reasons other than medical exemptions. After adjusting for covariate/s, parents' primary source of information and education status were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Media as a primary source of vaccine information and low education status were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is relatively low among former refugees and is influenced by modifiable factors, including educational level and primary source of vaccine information. Vaccine information tailored to former refugee parents' concerns are required to reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake.

Improving vaccine confidence is a topic of major public health importance. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy are multifactorial, making it challenging to find strategies to address them. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature on how co-design has been used to reduce vaccine hesitancy. We searched six databases in March and October 2024. Eligible studies described the co-design process used to develop interventions for addressing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine confidence. We assessed the quality of included studies, extracted and descriptively summarized the key data. Twenty-seven articles were included, 20 of which were based in a high-income setting. Most studies centered on the COVID-19 (n = 9) and HPV (n = 9) vaccines. Co-design yielded diverse interventions, with videos being the most common intervention format (n = 11). We observed substantial variations in the reporting style and terminology used within the studies and limited attempts to assess intervention effectiveness.

ABSTRACTImmunization programs worldwide have been facing challenges in keeping vaccination coverage high. Even though universally known for its robust National Immunization Program, Brazil has also faced significant challenges regarding vaccination coverage. One of the reasons for this is vaccine hesitancy, a complex, multi-causal, and context-specific phenomenon. This qualitative study aims to understand the factors associated with decision-making and the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in Florianopolis, Santa Catarina state capital, regarding caregivers’ perceptions of routine childhood vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted in the Capital city of Santa Catarina State. Families with children up to 6 years old were included. Data were analyzed based on thematic content analysis. Twenty-nine caregivers in 18 families were interviewed. These caregivers were mainly mothers and fathers. Three themes emerged: 1. Access to information and the decision-making process, where we discuss the role of social circles, healthcare workers, and the internet; 2. Individual-institutions power relationships: Perceptions about the State’s role and the Health institutions: 3. Reasons and motivations: The senses and meanings behind non-vaccination, where we discuss the drivers of vaccine hesitancy related to risk perception, caregivers’ opinions on the medical-pharmaceutical industry, vaccines’ composition and their side effects, families’ lifestyles and worldviews, and the childhood routine vaccination schedule. The results of this study reaffirm the complexity of the decision-making process in childhood vaccination and further enable a better contextual understanding of the complex and challenging phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy.

ABSTRACTA wide range of survey studies have explored vaccination hesitancy/resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic and provided evidence that this can be explained by several individual variables from the ideological, clinical, and socio-affective domain. However, evidence about which individual variables predict vaccine hesitancy in the post-pandemic state of COVID-19 is meager. We administered a battery of questionnaires to a group of 120 Italian participants with high and low scores on the adult vaccine hesitancy scale (aVHS) to investigate the predictive role of ideological (i.e. political orientation), clinical (i.e. anxiety, interoceptive accuracy), and socio-affective (i.e. alexithymia, disgust sensitivity/propensity, empathy) variables on vaccine hesitancy/resistance. This study provides evidence that lower interoceptive awareness and cognitive empathy are predictors of a greater hesitancy to get vaccinated in the post-pandemic COVID-19 state.

ABSTRACTThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused several impacts. Focusing on 360 participants (178 males, 182 females), this study explored the association between COVID-19 related distress, risk perception, stigma, and vaccine hesitancy and acceptance in the general population. Measures used included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and COVID Stress Scale (CSS) to evaluate anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 related distress, the COVID-19 Risk Perception Scale and COVID-19 Stigma Discrimination Scale to assess risk perception and stigma, and the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and Vaccine Acceptance Instrument to measure vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. The findings revealed that 66.9% of participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, and stress and risk perception were significant predictors of both vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, even after controlling for demographic factors. This study highlights the importance of understanding the factors mentioned above that will contribute to vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, which will contribute to promoting vaccine acceptance.

Background Aims Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Several authors have argued that vaccine hesitancy should be conceptualized as indecision in the vaccination decision‐making process, but no established measure with support for its psychometric properties and validity has been created from this operational definition.To resolve this tension, this article undergoes a four‐study scale development process to create the 4‐item Unidimensional Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (UVHS).We conduct four survey studies utilizing a total sample size of 884.In Studies 1 (n = 297) and 2 (n = 298), we provide psychometric support for the measure via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Studies 3 (n = 193) and 4 (n = 106), we support the concurrent and discriminant validity of the measure by assessing its relations with relevant constructs, such as vaccination readiness and acceptance, and we also provide initial indicators of the scale's possible predictive qualities by testing its time‐separated effects with vaccination willingness, receipt and word‐of‐mouth.We leverage these results to provide a number of theoretical insights and suggestions for future practice. Of note, we highlight that different conceptualizations and operationalizations for the same construct can produce notably differing empirical findings, and vaccine hesitancy is no different.Our cumulative efforts indicate that the UVHS is an appropriate measure to assess vaccine hesitancy as indecision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the dynamic evolution of vaccine hesitancy toward both COVID-19 and influenza in a context characterized by the compresence of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and seasonal flu epidemics, a two times repeated cross-sectional exploratory design was performed at Udine Hospital (Italy) following a cohort of 479 adult patients with a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020. Vaccine attitude was assessed through standardized telephone interviews performed at 12 and 18 months after the acute illness. The first interview reported the success of the 2020/21 seasonal influenza immunization with 46.8% (224/479) of the participants showing a positive attitude, especially the elderly and people with comorbidities (p

Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has grown over recent decades. While most of the strategies implemented to cope with VH are top-down interventions, the present article focuses on a unique community-based bottom-up initiative conducted in Israel: Mehusgan-the vaccinated kindergarten., Objective: The objective of the study was to learn about the vaccinated kindergarten initiative: its implementation, benefits, and challenges as well as its broader potential impact., Methodology: During 2020, we conducted 13 semi-structured in-depth interviews with parents, kindergarten teachers and managers, and physicians., Findings: The interviews revealed that parents are encouraged to complete the vaccination program as recommended; additional kindergartens join the initiative; and additional kindergartens become vaccinated., Conclusions: Mehusgan is a unique and growing initiative that leads to vaccinated kindergartens and, therefore, contributes to public health. This case study can encourage other community-based bottom-up initiatives that seek to raise vaccination rates., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

This article aimed to develop the Multidimensional Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (MVHS). In Study 1 ( n  = 336), we identified 13 possible vaccine hesitancy dimensions and developed an item list. In Study 2 ( n  = 444), we performed an exploratory factor analysis that supported an eight-dimension structure and reduced our measure to 32 items. We supported its validity by establishing relations with associated variables, even while controlling for measures of the same and similar constructs. In Study 3 ( n  = 575), we confirmed its factor structure and replicated its validity results. Support was provided for the psychometric properties and validity of the MVHS.

This study identified the significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and intention to uptake motives and sociodemographic predictors among vaccinated Malaysian adults. A cross-sectional study using a self-administered online questionnaire adapted from the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and extended based on previous studies was used to solicit data from 698 Malaysians. A theoretical framework comprising Trust, Vaccine Concerns, Unreliable Entities, Uptake Influencers, Brand Influencers, and Brand_Side-effect was used as a guide to assess intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines in the future. Hierarchical linear regressions revealed Trust, Vaccine Concerns, Brand_Side-effect and Uptake Influencers to significantly predict intention to receive vaccines in the future when controlled for sociodemographic correlates. Ethnicity and technology literacy were found to have significant impacts on future vaccine uptake. Age significantly correlated with intention to be vaccinated as well. Underlying motives and sociodemographic correlates were identified for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Plain Language Summary: COVID-19 Vaccine hesitancy and uptake This study investigated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and intention to uptake among 698 vaccinated Malaysian adults, using a self-administered online questionnaire based on the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and a theoretical framework encompassing Trust, Vaccine Concerns, Unreliable Entities, Uptake Influencers, Brand Influencers, and Brand_Side-effect. The analysis, conducted through hierarchical linear regressions, revealed significant predictors for future vaccine intention, including Trust, Vaccine Concerns, brand side effects, and Uptake Influencers, after controlling for sociodemographic factors. Ethnicity, technology literacy, and age were identified as significant influencers on future vaccine uptake. This study provides insights into the underlying motives and sociodemographic correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among Malaysians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widely recognised effectiveness against the spread of COVID‐19, vaccine hesitancy persists. This systematic literature review aimed to clarify the definition and the operationalisation of the term 'vaccine hesitancy' and disclose the various psychosocial factors underlying this phenomenon. The results of studies conducted in European countries and in the United States after the vaccines became available were taken into account. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses statement. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. efinitions and measures of vaccine hesitancy differed across the studies, limiting their comparison. Nonetheless, by drawing on theoretical frameworks, we were able to identify several psychosocial variables in determining vaccine hesitancy. Our findings point to the need for a transdisciplinary approach to understanding the antecedents of vaccine hesitancy. A better understanding of the phenomenon may help to develop interventions and social policies to address a complex challenge such as vaccination hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complex phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy has been causing increasing global concern. This systematic review aims at analysing the state of art of scientific literature concerning vaccine hesitancy in Latin America and Africa, observing if: (i) they use the same research trends as the global North; and (ii) the parameters recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and taken from the experience of the global North are adequate to the Global South's context. This review analyses empirical, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-study publications, from 2015 to 2020, available at five different databases. The studies produced in the Global South bring up important context-specific issues, such as issues of access (that are not included in the WHO's definition of vaccine hesitancy), cultural and religious issues, reactions to governments, reactions to recent episodes of vaccine tests on populations, and reactions to past of colonial violence. Initiatives to understand the phenomenon based on methodological and conceptual frameworks from the global North alone can cause wrongful conclusions.

Introduction The World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Vaccine hesitancy is defined as a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite the availability of vaccination services. Because vaccine safety concerns are important contributors to hesitancy, people who have experienced adverse events following immunization (AEFI) may be at especially high risk for subsequent vaccine hesitancy. The Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (DHA IHD) provides specialized vaccine care to persons who have experienced AEFI. The impact of this specialized vaccine care on subsequent vaccine hesitancy has not been fully explored. Materials and Methods A cohort of patients (n = 146) was identified among those who received consultative care from DHA IHD clinicians for AEFI concerns between April 2017 and September 2022. Analyses were restricted to non-uniformed beneficiaries of the Military Health System (MHS). Uniformed beneficiaries of the MHS were excluded from this analysis since vaccination mandates preclude the use of vaccine uptake as a measure of vaccine hesitancy. Outcomes were evaluated by reviewing MHS vaccination records after initial AEFI consultation through January 2023. Vaccine acceptance was considered the inverse of hesitancy, and was defined by: (a) receipt of any subsequent vaccination, (b) receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine, (c) receipt of subsequent doses of the AEFI-associated vaccine, if clinically recommended, and (d) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine. Results A diverse group of patients with a wide range of AEFI concerns received specialized vaccine care from DHA IHD clinicians during this period. Among the cohort, 78% of patients received any subsequent vaccination, 55.2% received seasonal influenza vaccine, 57.8% received a subsequent dose of their AEFI-associated vaccine when the vaccine was clinically recommended, and 48.9% received COVID-19 vaccine. The proportion of patients who received influenza vaccine exceeded the reported rate of influenza vaccine uptake by the general population during this time period. Conclusion Specialized vaccine care after AEFI concerns was associated with relatively high acceptance of subsequent vaccinations. The experiences of DHA IHD clinicians, in providing specialized vaccine care to AEFI patients, may serve as a model for other organizations that are working to reduce vaccine hesitancy, even beyond the MHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]