Search

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]

The VAX-TRUST project addresses vaccine hesitancy in seven European countries with a systematic and evidence-based approach. Interventions, targeting healthcare professionals, draw from behavioural and social theories. A checklist, inspired by the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication), ensures a detailed description of actions, transparency and replicability. The intervention development process begins with collaborative meetings and systematic revisions, concluding with external evaluations for replicability in diverse public health contexts. This study aims to provide valuable insights for future complex interventions in public health, based on lessons learnt to reduce the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. The analysis of educational interventions within the VAX-TRUST project has led to the definition of precise guidelines to ensure their replicability and adaptation to various contexts, attempting to establish a universally applicable approach. Active participant engagement and consideration of local social dynamics, beyond information transmission, have emerged as key factors to improve intervention effectiveness. Various educational tools and collaboration with academic institutions have contributed to strengthening credibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objective Some refugee and migrant populations globally showed lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and are also considered to be an under-immunized group for routine vaccinations. These communities may experience a range of barriers to vaccination systems, yet there is a need to better explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy in these mobile groups. Methods We did a global rapid review to explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy to define strategies to strengthen both COVID-19 and routine vaccination uptake, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health PsycINFO and grey literature. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to identify drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy, and then categorized using the 'Increasing Vaccination Model'. Results Sixty-three papers were included, reporting data on diverse population groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants and undocumented migrants in 22 countries. Drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy pertaining to a wide range of vaccines were covered, including COVID-19 (n  = 27), human papillomavirus (13), measles or Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) (3), influenza (3), tetanus (1) and vaccination in general. We found a range of factors driving under-immunization and hesitancy in refugee and migrant groups, including unique awareness and access factors that need to be better considered in policy and service delivery. Acceptability of vaccination was often deeply rooted in social and historical context and influenced by personal risk perception. Conclusions These findings hold direct relevance to current efforts to ensure high levels of global coverage for a range of vaccines and to ensure that marginalized refugee and migrant populations are included in the national vaccination plans of low-, middle- and high-income countries. We found a stark lack of research from low- and middle-income and humanitarian contexts on vaccination in mobile groups. This needs to be urgently rectified if we are to design and deliver effective programmes that ensure high coverage for COVID-19 and routine vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Dengvaxia® (dengue vaccine) controversy has been identified as one of the main reasons for the measles vaccine hesitancy in the Philippines. Our study aimed to identify various issues related to the Dengvaxia® controversy and to link these issues with the social perspective of measles vaccine refusal. Methods Semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion using ethnography research were conducted with 41 parents and healthcare workers in Pasay City. Using Victor Turner's Social Drama Theory, our study identified existing social issues relating to the different angles of the Dengvaxia® controversy and the measles vaccine hesitancy. Results Misinformation on the failed Dengvaxia® rollout implementation has challenged the fundamental understanding of the importance of immunization programs. Our findings on vaccine hesitancy in the community showed a complex problem with compounded factors, including medical populism, moral panics and other social views. We described how Pasay City's clinic waiting room became a significantly important scenario where individuals often discuss information, concerns and experiences on vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion Our study suggests that the Dengvaxia® controversy may reduce the measles vaccination confidence in the Philippines. Lack of transparency played a crucial role in this dilemma, producing a cascading effect on the other vaccines' safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine hesitancy and resistance pose significant threats to controlling pandemics and preventing infectious diseases. In a group of individuals unvaccinated against the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19), we investigated how age, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and their interaction affected the likelihood of having changed one's vaccination decision a year later. We hypothesized that higher IU would increase the likelihood of becoming vaccinated, particularly among individuals of younger age. We predicted that this effect would remain significant, even after controlling for delay discounting and trust in science. Purpose The goal of this research was to understand the factors influencing changes in vaccination decisions among the vaccine hesitant. Methods In a larger longitudinal study, ~7,500 participants from Prolific.co completed demographic and vaccination status questions, a delay discounting task, and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale in June–August 2021. Approximately 3,200 participants completed a follow-up survey in July–August 2022, answering questions about vaccination status, reasons for vaccination decision, and trust in science. We analyzed data from 251 participants who initially had no intention of getting vaccinated and completed the follow-up survey; 38% reported becoming vaccinated in the intervening year. Results Data were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression. Over and above other factors related to vaccination decisions (delay discounting, trust in science), younger participants were more likely to change their decision and become vaccinated a year later, especially if they had higher IU, confirming our predictions. Primary reasons for becoming vaccinated were necessity and seeking protection against the virus. Conclusions These findings highlight the complex interplay between age, uncertainty, and vaccination decisions, and inform health policies by suggesting the need for tailoring interventions to specific concerns in different age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine hesitancy can prevent full immunization against coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19). We hypothesized that multiple factors, including an individual's personality and psychological factors, are associated with vaccine hesitancy. Methods A total of 275 non-vaccinated individuals were recruited for this study. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire including sociodemographic factors, health status, COVID-19 literacy and psychological factors (depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety, somatization, illness anxiety, temperament and character). In a hierarchical logistic regression analysis, a discrete set of hierarchical variables with vaccine acceptance or hesitancy as the dependent variable was added to the demographic factors for Model 1; Model 1 + health status for Model 2; Model 2 + COVID-19 literacy for Model 3 and Model 3 + psychological factors for Model 4. Results Models 3 and 4 could predict vaccine hesitancy. High scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and the Illness Attitude Scale, low confidence, low collective responsibility and low reward dependence were risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that psychological factors play critical roles in vaccine hesitancy. In addition to conventional policies that emphasize COVID-19 vaccines' safety and efficacy and the collective benefits of vaccination, a more individualized approach that considers an individual's emotions and personality is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy is a global health issue and can be affected by several variables. We explored the predictive factors and causes of vaccine hesitancy among adults in Saudi Arabia. An online survey method with multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors predicting of vaccine hesitancy in 558 adults (46.24% women and 53.76% men). The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy is 20.6%, with higher rates among females, young people and single people. About 70% of the participants believe that vaccine hesitancy is due to concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, a lack of information about the disease and vaccine or social media. The vaccine acceptance rate is 71.3%; 17.2% are not willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and 11.5% are unsure. Males and married people are more accepting of the vaccine. The risk factors that predict vaccine hesitancy include age, gender, belief in conspiracy theories and psychosocial factors. Meanwhile, age, gender, belief in conspiracy theories, concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and psychosocial factors significantly predict vaccine acceptance. The high rate of vaccine hesitancy could undermine efforts to combat COVID-19. Factors predicting vaccine hesitancy can be used in interventions to address this issue during major epidemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives Despite federal legislation requiring nursing home (NH) staff members to be vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), unvaccinated staff pose an ongoing public health risk. The research question guiding this study is as follows: What is the relationship between strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and vaccination rates among staff? We used the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory as a theoretical framework. Research Design and Methods The sample (N  = 627) included Ohio-based NHs. Using national and state NH data, multivariable linear regression techniques demonstrated the relationship between strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and vaccination rates among NH staff. Results Peer counseling and providing sick time or time off for vaccine symptoms were both statistically significant strategies. Compared to facilities that did not engage in peer counseling, those that did saw an average increase of 3.2% of their staff vaccinated. Those that provided sick time or time off saw an average increase of 3.9% of their staff vaccinated. There was no statistically significant relationship between hiring full- or part-time facility infection preventionists and vaccination rates. Discussion and Implications In order to foster vaccine confidence among long-term services staff, peer counseling, and providing sick time or time off are examples of strategies that can affect vaccination rates among staff. According to DOI, these strategies target the communication channels and social systems of an organization. While this study focuses on NHs, results remain critically important to the remainder of the long-term services system, which does not have vaccine requirements similar to the NH industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This finding supports current limited data on vaccine hesitancy among patients with psoriasis.6 In contrast to a prior report in psoriasis,6 but in keeping with general population trends,4 hesitancy was more prominent among younger people. PsoProtect I Me i was updated 1 year following its launch to include COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and questions regarding access to care, hence the current sample may not be representative of the original larger sample.7 Taken together, these data indicate that only a minority of individuals with psoriasis have vaccine hesitancy hence our findings are promising for current and future COVID-19 vaccine uptake. (d) Association between disrupted access to psoriasis care and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. gl In an unadjusted logistic regression model, strongly agreeing that psoriasis care was disrupted, was associated with vaccine hesitancy [compared with strongly disagreeing; odds ratio (OR) 2-97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1-23-7-13, I P i = 0-015]. Dear Editor, COVID-19 vaccines protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes; however, many individuals remain unvaccinated.1,2 Vaccine hesitancy (delayed acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite service availability) threatens public health. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction In the United States, vaccine hesitancy has been identified as a major barrier to vaccination against COVID-19, but attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination among military personnel are not well understood. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine consent or refusal among deployed personnel in a joint environment. Materials and Methods Deidentified data were retrospectively extracted from the electronic medical record of the Military Health System in May 2021. All personnel currently assigned to the deployment area of operations were included in the analysis if their choice to receive the vaccine was known. Personnel characteristics were compared by vaccine acceptance status using chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, or correlation coefficients. This analysis was exempted from Institutional Review Board review. Results The sample included 1,809 individuals, primarily members of the Army (72%) and members of Reserve (53%) or National Guard (27%) units. In the overall sample, 61% accepted the vaccine, with vaccine acceptance rates being lowest among Black or African American personnel (54%; P  = .03 for comparison across racial groups) and members of Reserve or National Guard units (59%; P  < .001 for comparison by component). No differences in vaccine acceptance were found according to sex or health status (including prior COVID-19 infection). Conclusions Overall vaccine acceptance was greater among deployed military personnel than that reported in the U.S. population as a whole. However, lower vaccine acceptance among personnel from marginalized populations suggests a need to ensure that all service members have sufficient opportunities to have a frank and ongoing discussion with health care providers to address concerns related to vaccination. Additionally, lower vaccine acceptance among Reserve and National Guard personnel indicates a need for innovative educational approaches to counter vaccine hesitancy in the premobilization phase of deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background School-located influenza vaccination programme (SIVP) can effectively promote childhood seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). However, the longitudinal effects of continuation and discontinuation of the SIVP on parents' vaccine hesitancy remained unknown. Methods A two-wave longitudinal study recruited adult parents who had at least one child attending a kindergarten or primary school using random-digital-dialled telephone interviews. Generalized estimating equation and structural equation modelling were used to examine the impact of changes in schools' SIVP participation status on parents' vaccine-related attitudes, and childhood SIV acceptance over 2 years in Hong Kong. Results Children's SIV uptake varied by the schools' SIVP participation status. The highest SIV uptake was found in schools that consistently participated in SIVP (Consistent participation group) (2018/2019: 85.0%; 2019/2020: 83.0%) but lowest in the Consistent non-Participation group (2018/2019: 45.0%; 2019/2020: 39.0%). SIV uptake increased in the Late Initiation group but declined in the Discontinuation group. An increasing trend of parental vaccine-hesitant attitudes was observed in the Consistent non-Participation group. Conclusions Initiation and continuation of the SIVP can reduce parental vaccine hesitancy to achieve a high childhood SIV uptake. Conversely, discontinuation of the SIVP or persistent resistance to the implementation of SIVP can increase parental vaccine hesitancy and reduce childhood SIV uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Articles were eligible if evaluated interventions directly targeted at HCPs/healthcare students. The search was run on 26 January 2022. Articles published in 2016 or after were included. Results A total of 17 492 records were identified; 139 articles were selected. Most articles were set in USA (n  = 110). Over half had a pre–post design without a control group (n  = 78). A total of 41 articles focused on single-component interventions, 60 on multi-component interventions involving only HCPs and/or students and 38 on multi-component interventions involving also other professionals. Main components were in-person education (n  = 76), synchronous (n  = 10) and asynchronous (n  = 23) online learning, educational materials (n  = 26), performance assessment and feedback (n  = 33), electronic record changes (n  = 30), role play/simulation (n  = 21) and online games/apps (n  = 5). Educational sessions were mainly about scientific update or communication. Outcomes of interventions were grouped in: vaccination rates (n  = 69), knowledge (n  = 32), attitudes (n  = 26), confidence in counselling (n  = 30) and acceptability (n  = 16). Conclusions Apps, gaming, role play/simulations could represent innovative interventions. This review highlighted the need of delving into communication strategies and using more robust evaluations, longer follow-up and standardized measurements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A vaccine for coccidioidomycosis is likely to undergo trials in the near future. In this paper, we raise 4 questions that should be answered before its use and offer our solutions to these questions. These include defining the goals of vaccination, determining who should be vaccinated, how to measure vaccine immunity and protection, and how to address vaccine hesitancy and denial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The immunization program has been an important part of Indian public health policy for three decades; yet only 62% of children are being fully immunized. Vaccine hesitancy is a major contributor to the immunization gap that needs to be addressed. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study of prevalence and predictors of vaccine hesitancy was conducted in 350 households having at least one child in the age group of 13–24 months. Statistical analysis was done using chi-square test and logistic regression. Results The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 28.9%. Fear of needles, concern about pain during vaccination, lack of family support, and apprehension regarding side effects were ascertained as reasons for vaccine hesitancy. The type of family, time taken to reach the health facility and antenatal care received by the mother were significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was found to be high. In 2019, the World Health Organization earmarked vaccine hesitancy as one of the major roadblocks to better global health. A better understanding of the subject can help public health agencies enhance vaccination coverage, not just in children but also as a tool to protect entire populations in this age of re-emerging epidemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19-related misinformation and vaccine hesitancy is a widespread global concern and a recognized public health problem in Pakistan. The current research sought to explore the beliefs and experiences with regard to COVID-19, including vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, in a slum of Karachi, Pakistan. This study used an interpretivist epistemological approach for data collection and employed in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to explore the themes of interest. IDIs and FDGs were conducted in the local language (Pashtu) and Urdu, using semi-structured interview guides. A hybrid thematic analysis approach (use of both inductive and deductive coding) was used to analyze the data. We identified two key themes: the first related to vaccine hesitancy and refusal and included the role of personal belief systems, vaccine mistrust and public perceptions in hesitancy; the second related to vaccine acceptance and included knowledge and awareness about the vaccine and trusted sources of information. Religious beliefs and cultural norms influenced attitudes toward COVID-19 and vaccination. This study also found that awareness about the COVID-19 vaccine in this sample was influenced by sex, educational status and socioeconomic status. Participants with good health literacy and those from healthcare backgrounds were more likely to share views that indicated vaccine acceptance. The findings of this study are being used to co-design a comprehensive intervention to dispel COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy across a range of stakeholders such as youths, community leaders, family members, faith leaders, schools and community-based local organizations in Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aimed to assess the prevalence of Varicella-Zoster Virus (VZV) immunity, vaccination uptake and incidence of VZV-related events in inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients initiating biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Methods An observational study was conducted in a single hospital between March 2019 and December 2020. Ninety-three IA patients were included. Data were collected from electronic health records and analysed using the chi-squared test. Results The majority of patients (91.4%) were seropositive for VZV, reaffirming the necessity for vaccination. In total, 8.6% of the cohort received the Zostavax vaccine, despite a small yet significant number of patients (4.3%) experiencing Herpes Zoster after initiating treatment. Multiple factors contributed to low vaccine uptake, including limited vaccine availability, discrepancies between the British Society for Rheumatology and Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidelines, vaccine hesitancy and concerns regarding vaccine efficacy and risks. Discussion Significant VZV immunity exists among patients prior to targeted therapy commencement. Risk factors for VZV-related events include Janus kinase inhibition, increasing age and long-term steroid use. VZV-related events occurred exclusively in patients with prior viral immunity. Despite most patients having serological evidence of prior VZV exposure, our study exposes critical gaps between current clinical guidelines and practice, particularly in VZV vaccine uptake. Barriers to vaccination include inconsistent guidelines, limited vaccine availability and patient-level hesitancy. This is concerning as our cohort demonstrated small but significant rates of zoster, mostly among patients on long-term steroids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine hesitancy is increasingly recognized as a health challenge affecting populations worldwide. Given the biological vulnerabilities and structural barriers people who use substances and/or have behavioral addictions face, this systematic review aims to evaluate whether this subpopulation is less prone to adhere to vaccination recommendations. Methods Electronic searches of published original research were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsycINFO from database inception to December 2022. Our strategy encompassed retrievals regardless of languages and date of publication. Animal studies, abstracts without a full manuscript, and studies which were considered to have lower robustness of scientific evidence were excluded. Outcomes measured were vaccine acceptance, uptake, and adherence. Results were interpreted through a narrative synthesis. Results The search yielded 103 retrievals encompassing data collected on 5 576 374 persons who were predominantly residents of Europe (n = 39) and North America (n = 27). Tobacco use, the substance for which many studies were found (n = 91), was significantly associated with poorer vaccine acceptance, uptake and adherence for influenza, COVID-19, human papillomavirus (HPV), and maternal and childhood vaccines. Peri-natal and parental substance use was identified as a risk factor for suboptimal vaccine-related outcomes concerning maternal COVID-19 and childhood vaccines. Finally, people identified as 'using', 'abusing', or 'misusing' drugs or substances may be at decreased odds of all outcomes in various vaccines. Conclusions Collectively, the studies identified several groups with statistically significant greater vaccine hesitancy and decreased engagement among whom targeted measures could be beneficial. Timely evidence, especially on behavioral addictions and substances besides tobacco, is lacking, and warrants urgent attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As countries continue the third year of the pandemic, we believe that there has been unfair attention to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, while tacitly ignoring serious challenges with vaccine uptake, without which vaccination may not be effective against the spread of COVID-19. While several studies have been published on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, there remains a need to conduct a comprehensive global analysis of vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a scoping review of 60 studies published globally on vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. We conducted a qualitative analysis to identify motivators and barriers to vaccination across several cultural and demographic contexts. We found the following factors to be relevant in any discussion about addressing or minimizing vaccine hesitancy: risk perceptions, trust in health care systems, solidarity, previous experiences with vaccines, misinformation, concerns about vaccine side effects and political ideology. We combine our insights from this comprehensive review of global literature to offer an important and practical discussion about two strategies that have been used to improve vaccine uptake: (i) communication and education and (ii) vaccine rollout and logistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite the availability of safe and efficacious coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, a significant proportion of the American public remains unvaccinated and does not appear to be immediately interested in receiving the vaccine. Methods In this study, we analyzed data from the US Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, a biweekly cross-sectional survey of US households. We estimated the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy across states and nationally and assessed the predictors of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rejection. In addition, we examined the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy, grouped into thematic categories. Results A total of 459 235 participants were surveyed from 6 January to 29 March 2021. While vaccine uptake increased from 7.7% to 47%, vaccine hesitancy rates remained relatively fixed: overall, 10.2% reported that they would probably not get a vaccine and 8.2% that they would definitely not get a vaccine. Income, education, and state political leaning strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. However, while both female sex and black race were factors predicting hesitancy, among those who were hesitant, these same characteristics predicted vaccine reluctance rather than rejection. Those who expressed reluctance invoked mostly "deliberative" reasons, while those who rejected the vaccine were also likely to invoke reasons of "dissent" or "distrust." Conclusions Vaccine hesitancy comprises a sizable proportion of the population and is large enough to threaten achieving herd immunity. Distinct subgroups of hesitancy have distinctive sociodemographic associations as well as cognitive and affective predilections. Segmented public health solutions are needed to target interventions and optimize vaccine uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short communication makes the case for targeted vaccine research when attempting to counter hesitancy, especially amongst vulnerable or rarefied patient groups. Far from disincentivizing vaccination, the freedom to research and publicize the limitations of these technologies for certain groups and personalizing dosing, pacing, adjuvants, and time-sensitive alternatives in response is essential for optimizing health outcomes while neutralizing the vaccine research landscape itself. Vaccine evangelism only arouses suspicion when it is not tempered by rigorous research into differential vaccine benefit-risk in this way. That said, the long-standing politicization of vaccination—a topic vulnerable to misinterpretation and media sensationalism—along with the commercial incentives associated with universal adoption makes more comparative and critical research difficult to fund and promote in practice. Likewise, a prescriptive approach to vaccination does little to address the issues of vaccine inequality that contribute to both hesitancy and conspiracy globally and will likely prove financially prohibitive in certain markets. These obstacles are not insurmountable, however, provided that comparative research is centrally subsidized, regulations ensure that vaccine development trials explore differentiated outcomes, especially amongst high-risk or rare groups, and findings are used to prioritize global vaccine allocation to those that stand to benefit most from them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine inequity are 2 major hurdles toward achieving population immunity to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although several studies have been published on vaccine hesitancy among numerous populations, there is inadequate information on any potential correlation between vaccine acceptance and lack of access to vaccines. Our cross-sectional study in a low-income country aimed to fill this gap. Methods We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional survey among the general population in Yemen, a low-income conflict country. Participants from all provinces in Yemen were included in the study. We evaluated factors that influence agreement to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and any potential correlation between vaccine hesitancy and lack of access to vaccines. Results Overall, 50.1% of the 5329 respondents agreed to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Only 39.9% of participants agreed that they had access to a COVID-19 vaccine, with females indicating lower access than males. Potential determinants of vaccine acceptance included being male, updating self on the development of vaccines against COVID-19, opinion about severity of COVID-19, anxiety about contracting COVID-19, concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and lack of access to vaccines. Conclusions Our results indicate that the immediate threat in Yemen toward achieving population immunity is the severe shortage and lack of access to vaccines, rather than vaccine hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background People who inject drugs (PWID) are vulnerable to acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We examined correlates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among PWID in the US-Mexico border region, of whom only 7.6% had received ≥ 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose by September 2021. Methods Between October 2020 and September 2021, participants aged ≥ 18 years from San Diego, California, USA, and Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, who injected drugs within the last month completed surveys and SARS-CoV-2, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) serologic testing. Logistic regressions with robust standard error estimation via generalized estimating equations identified factors associated with being unsure or unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Results Of 393 participants, 266 (67.7%) were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines and 127 (32.3%) were hesitant (23.4% unwilling and 8.9% unsure). Older participants, those with greater food insecurity, and those with greater concern about acquiring SARS-CoV-2 were more willing to be vaccinated. Higher numbers of chronic health conditions, having access to a smart phone or computer, and citing social media as one's most important source of COVID-19 information were independently associated with vaccine hesitancy. COVID-19-related disinformation was independently associated with vaccine hesitancy (adjusted odds ratio: 1.51 per additional conspiracy theory endorsed; 95% confidence interval: 1.31–1.74). Conclusions Nearly one third of people injecting drugs in the US-Mexico border region were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, which was significantly associated with exposure to social media, disinformation and co-morbidities and inversely associated with food security and high perceived threat of COVID-19. Interventions that improve accurate knowledge of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines are needed in this vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccination can help control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic but is undermined by vaccine hesitancy. Social media disseminates information and misinformation regarding vaccination. Tracking and analyzing social media vaccine sentiment could better prepare health professionals for vaccination conversations and campaigns. Methods A real-time big data analytics framework was developed using natural language processing sentiment analysis, a form of artificial intelligence. The framework ingests, processes, and analyzes tweets for sentiment and content themes, such as natural health or personal freedom, in real time. A later dataset evaluated the relationship between Twitter sentiment scores and vaccination rates in the United States. Results The real-time analytics framework showed a widening gap in sentiment with more negative sentiment after vaccine rollout. After rollout, using a static dataset, an increase in positive sentiment was followed by an increase in vaccination. Lag cross-correlation analysis across US regions showed evidence that once all adults were eligible for vaccination, the sentiment score consistently correlated with vaccination rate with a lag of around 1 week. The Granger causality test further demonstrated that tweet sentiment scores may help predict vaccination rates. Conclusions Social media has influenced the COVID-19 response through valuable information and misinformation and distrust. This tool was used to collect and analyze tweets at scale in real time to study sentiment and key terms of interest. Separate tweet analysis showed that vaccination rates tracked regionally with Twitter vaccine sentiment and might forecast changes in vaccine uptake and/or guide targeted social media and vaccination strategies. Further work is needed to analyze the interplay between specific populations, vaccine sentiment, and vaccination rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examine the factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics, major epidemics and global outbreaks. A systematic review and thematic analysis of 28 studies on the Influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and the global spread of Ebola Virus Disease. We found seven major factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance: demographic factors influencing vaccination (ethnicity, age, sex, pregnancy, education, and employment), accessibility and cost, personal responsibility and risk perceptions, precautionary measures taken based on the decision to vaccinate, trust in health authorities and vaccines, the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine, and lack of information or vaccine misinformation. An understanding of participant experiences and perspectives toward vaccines from previous pandemics will greatly inform the development of strategies to address the present situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the impact vaccine hesitancy might have for the introduction and effectiveness of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, we believe that skepticism toward vaccines can still exist when there are no vaccines available, which is contrary to contemporary conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend conducting further research assessing the relationship between the accessibility and cost of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health-care professionals (HCPs) are key trusted figures in addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) challenges. They are thought to influence others' health decisions by personal example. However, during the COVID-19 crisis, some HCPs hesitated to be vaccinated. We examined factors contributing to that decision. We performed 12 semi-structured interviews, between February and May 2021, with Israeli HCPs who had declined or delayed COVID-19 vaccination. Three coders conducted a combined top-down and bottom-up analysis. We identified four main themes shaping vaccine decision-making: (i) sources of information, (ii) perceptions of necessity and risks of the vaccine, (iii) individual versus collective responsibility and (iv) political climate and media influence. Participants were worried about long-term effectiveness and safety, and while many agreed that high-risk populations should be vaccinated, all considered themselves to be at low risk for serious disease. Some felt they should avoid taking a perceived risk (accepting a new vaccine) to protect society, although they felt pressured to do so. Vaccination campaign politization and the way the media approached the subject also contributed to mistrust and hesitancy to be vaccinated. These findings help us understand HCP beliefs and uncertainties about COVID-19 vaccinations. This study can help inform future campaigns targeted at HCPs to promote the acceptance of vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: COVID-19; Racial/ethnic disparities; U.S. regions; Vaccination EN COVID-19 Racial/ethnic disparities U.S. regions Vaccination 146 148 3 10/26/22 20221001 NES 221001 Older adults, aged 65 and over, now constitute 16.5% of the U.S. population ([10]). Relying solely on these sources can make the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation even greater (when encountered; [1]), especially among older racial and ethnic populations, who have lower health literacy and who may not have access to personal health-care providers. Despite the availability of vaccines, many older adults are still forgoing vaccination as a preventive measure for COVID-19. [Extracted from the article]

This study examined attitudes toward maternal RSV vaccines among pregnant and lactating persons in Kenya. First pregnancy was associated with higher vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and lactating people, and social norms were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy among lactating people. Understanding maternal RSV attitudes is critical for vaccine acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Women have been significantly more likely than men to express hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination and, to a lesser extent, to refuse vaccination altogether. This gender gap is puzzling because women have been more likely to perceive higher risks from COVID-19, to approve more restrictive measures to fight the pandemic and to be more compliant with such measures. Methods This article studies the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes using two nationally representative surveys of public opinion fielded in February 2021 and May 2021 in 27 European countries. The data are analyzed using generalized additive models and multivariate logistic regression. Results The data analyses show that hypotheses about (i) pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding concerns, (ii) higher trust in Internet and social networks as sources of medical information, (iii) lower trust in health authorities and (iv) lower perceived risks of getting infected with COVID-19 cannot account for the gender gap in vaccine hesitancy. One explanation that receives support from the data is that women are more likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and ineffective and this leads them to perceive the net benefits of vaccination as lower than the associated risks. Conclusions The gender gap in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy results to a large extent from women perceiving higher risks than benefits of the vaccines. While accounting for this and other factors decreases the gap in vaccine hesitancy, it does not eliminate it completely, which suggests further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has become a public-health emergency of international concern. Most efforts to contain the spread and transmission of the virus rely on campaigns and interventions targeted to reduce Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal (VHR). Objective this study aims to assess the major factors associated with VHR in the older population in Portugal. Methods a nation-wide cross-sectional study was conducted in the older Portuguese population (≥65 years old) through computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of the independent variables (perceptions, knowledge and attitudes) and of the outcome (VHR). Results the response rate was 60.1% (602/1,001). Perceptions, knowledge and attitudes were strongly associated with VHR probability. A 1-point Likert scale increase in concerns about the vaccines' efficacy and safety increased the risk of VHR by 1.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40–6.28) and 3.13 (95%CI: 2.08–8.22), respectively. A reduction of VHR probability for 'reliability of the information released by social media' (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.16–0.70) and for 'trust in national and international competent authorities' (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.17–0.69) is also observed per 1-point increase. Conclusions as VHR seems to be strongly associated with perceptions, knowledge and attitudes, the design and promotion of vaccination campaigns/educational interventions specifically targeted at changing these potentially modifiable determinants may help to tackle COVID-19 VHR and achieve a wider vaccine coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Far-right politicians in several countries have been vocal opponents of COVID-19 vaccination. But can this threaten vaccine roll-out? Methods We take advantage of repeated cross-sectional surveys with samples of around 3800 individuals across Spain conducted monthly from December 2020 to January 2022 (n  = 51 294) to examine any association between far-right politics and vaccine hesitancy through the whole vaccine roll-out. Results Consistent with prior data, we found that far-right supporters were almost twice as likely to be vaccine-hesitant than the overall population in December 2020, before vaccines became available. However, with a successful vaccine roll out, this difference shrank, reaching non-significance by September 2021. From October 2021, however, vaccine hesitancy rebounded among this group at a time when the leadership of the far-right promoted a 'freedom of choice' discourse common among anti-vax supporters. By the latest month analysed (January 2022), far-right voters had returned to being twice as likely to be vaccine-hesitant and 7 percentage points less likely to be vaccinated than the general population. Conclusions Our results are consistent with evidence that far-right politicians can encourage vaccine hesitancy. Nonetheless, we show that public attitudes towards vaccination are not immutable. Whereas a rapid and effective vaccine rollout can help to overcome the resistance of far-right voters to get vaccinated, they also seem to be susceptible to their party leader's discourse on vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Over the last years, research interest in vaccine hesitancy has increased. Studies usually focus on perceptions of parents and have largely neglected the group of health care providers. However, doctors' notions on vaccination have a major impact on the decision-making process of their patients. We were interested to understand the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy among physicians, with a particular focus on the measles vaccine. Furthermore, we aimed to understand the underlying perceptions of measles that may be associated with vaccine hesitant decisions. Methods In order to get an in-depth view, semi-structured interviews with physicians were conducted. Doctors were eligible for the study if they articulated vaccine hesitant views and/or demonstrated vaccine hesitancy in their medical practice. Results We interviewed 12 physicians, of whom 11 had a medical practice with no contract with the Austrian social insurance ('Wahlarzt') and additional training in complementary and alternative medicine. We found perceptions of immunology, health and illness that were discordant with evidence-based medicine and closely related to alternative and complementary medicine. All participants argued for a delayed administration of the measles vaccine. We found a consistent inclination towards 'individual vaccination', which was explained as empowering parents and to strengthen their decision-making competencies. Most participants expressed doubts about the reliability of vaccine studies and were concerned with possible long-term effects. Conclusions Paying closer attention to doctors' concerns on vaccination might help to design target-oriented interventions to specifically strengthen vaccine confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Immunization is an essential component of RA care. Nevertheless, vaccine coverage in RA is suboptimal. Contextual, individual and vaccine-related factors influence vaccine acceptance. However, barriers and facilitators of vaccination in RA are not well defined. The aim of this study was to assess perspectives of RA patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in RA care of barriers and facilitators regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. Methods Eight focus groups (four with RA patients and four with HCPs) and eight semi-structured open-ended individual interviews with vaccine-hesitant RA patients were conducted. Data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported to MAXQDA software. Analysis using the framework of vaccine hesitancy proposed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization was conducted. Results RA patients and HCPs reported common and specific barriers and facilitators to influenza vaccination that included contextual, individual and/or group and vaccine- and/or vaccination-specific factors. A key contextual influence on vaccination was patients' perception of the media, pharmaceutical industry, authorities, scientists and the medical community at large. Among the individual-related influences, experiences with vaccination, knowledge/awareness and beliefs about health and disease prevention were considered to impact vaccine acceptance. Vaccine-related factors including concerns about vaccine side effects such as RA flares, the safety of new formulations, the mechanism of action, access to vaccines and costs associated with vaccination were identified as actionable barriers. Conclusion Acknowledging RA patients' perceived barriers to influenza and pneumococcal vaccination and implementing specific strategies to address them might increase vaccination coverage in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Side-effect concerns are a major barrier to vaccination against COVID-19 and other diseases. Identifying cost- and time-efficient interventions to improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy—without withholding information about side effects—is critical. Purpose Determine whether a brief symptom as positive signals mindset intervention can improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy after the COVID-19 vaccination. Methods English-speaking adults (18+) were recruited during the 15-min wait period after receiving their second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and were randomly allocated to the symptom as positive signals mindset condition or the treatment as usual control. Participants in the mindset intervention viewed a 3:43-min video explaining how the body responds to vaccinations and how common side effects such as fatigue, sore arm, and fever are signs that the vaccination is helping the body boost immunity. The control group received standard vaccination center information. Results Mindset participants (N = 260) versus controls (N = 268) reported significantly less worry about symptoms at day 3 [ t (506)=2.60, p =.01, d =0.23], fewer symptoms immediately following the vaccine [ t (484)=2.75, p =.006, d =0.24], and increased intentions to vaccinate against viruses like COVID-19 in the future [ t (514)=−2.57, p =.01, d =0.22]. No significant differences for side-effect frequency at day 3, coping, or impact. Conclusions This study supports the use of a brief video aimed at reframing symptoms as positive signals to reduce worry and increase future vaccine intentions. Clinical Trial information Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000722897p. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global health crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the necessity of swift vaccine development and distribution to curb virus transmission. However, discussions on vaccine acceptance and hesitancy have predominantly focused on pre-vaccination attitudes, often overlooking the significance of post-vaccination experiences in shaping individual and communal attitudes toward vaccines. This oversight is particularly critical among healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), who play a dual role in combating the pandemic and influencing public vaccine sentiment. Using the theory of planned behavior, this study explores the post-vaccination experiences of healthcare workers in Sierra Leone and assesses how these experiences influence their attitudes toward vaccine safety, efficacy and their advocacy for vaccine uptake within their communities. Employing a qualitative design, the study interviewed 24 healthcare workers, 21 of whom were vaccinated against COVID-19. Semi-structured interviews, conducted in English or Krio, were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes. Three themes were identified: positive vaccination experiences exceeding initial expectations, strong belief in the vaccine's protective benefits and active roles in vaccine advocacy. Despite initial hesitations due to concerns over potential adverse effects, participants reported no significant issues post-vaccination, fostering trust in vaccine safety and effectiveness. Healthcare workers' positive post-vaccination experiences significantly bolster their vaccine advocacy, influencing their recommendations to patients, friends, families, colleagues and community members. This study highlights the importance of understanding and leveraging healthcare workers' experiences to enhance public trust and vaccine uptake, crucial for pandemic response efforts in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on a study which evaluated vaccine hesitancy in people with autoimmune rheumatic (AIRD) diseases between 2021 and 2022. Cited are the result of the evaluation of individual reasons for not being vaccinated, the geographic differences regarding vaccination acceptance, and the long-term safety concerns cited by study participants.

Background We aimed to evaluate whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination was associated with stroke. Methods We conducted a systematic meta-analysis of studies using cohort, self-controlled case series (SCCS), and case-crossover study (CCOS) designs to evaluate incidence risk ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of ischemic stroke (IS), hemorrhagic stroke (HS), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) following COVID-19 vaccination. Risks of stroke were pooled among subpopulations categorized by vaccine type, dose, age, and sex. Sensitivity analysis was performed by different defined risk periods. Results Fourteen studies involving 79 918 904 individuals were included. Cohort studies showed decreased risks of IS (IRR, 0.82 [95% CI,.75–.90]) and HS (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI,.67–.85]) postvaccination, but not CVST (IRR, 1.18 [95% CI,.70–1.98]). SCCS identified increased risks 1–21 days postvaccination (IRRIS, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00–1.10]; IRRHS, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06–1.26]) or 1–28 days postvaccination (IRRIS, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; IRRHS, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.15–1.64]), similar to CVST (IRR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.08–2.32]). CCOS reported an increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 vaccination (IRR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.1–7.2]). Conclusions Although different study designs yielded inconsistent findings, considering the relatively low background incidence of stroke and benefits of vaccination, even a potentially increased risk of stroke postvaccination should not justify vaccine hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As of July 2021, three vaccines have been issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to combat SARS-CoV-2 with over 65% of U.S. adults having received at least one vaccine dose. However, up to 35% of the population are hesitant or refuse to get vaccinated. As reproductive toxicity studies were not conducted prior to EUA, adults have expressed concern about potential adverse effects of the vaccines on fertility and reproductive health. We evaluated the current reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the unvaccinated U.S. population and identified their demographic characteristics. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was used to survey the vaccine hesitancy reasons amongst unvaccinated U.S. adult population between June 30, 2021-July 1, 2021. The project title listed for survey participants during distribution was "Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Survey". The study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, and it was deemed an exemption. Users with addresses in the U.S., over the age of 18, and received no doses of any coronavirus vaccine at any time were invited to complete an anonymous 32-question survey with an estimated completion time of less than 10 minutes. The first part of the survey focused on identifying attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccines while the latter queried demographic information such as age, race/ethnicity, and relationship status. Quantitative data was analyzed using by two-sample Z-test on Microsoft Excel (version 16.44) and MATLAB (version R2021a). A total of 914 unvaccinated adults completed our survey (response rate 91.4%) with 53% of respondents identifying as cis-male and 42% as cis-female. Of the participants, 58% indicated 'COVID-19 vaccine side effects or other potential unknown long-term effects' as their reason for remaining unvaccinated and 39% of them believed that 'COVID-19 vaccines can negatively impact reproductive health and/or fertility'. Among those participants that were concerned that COVID-19 vaccines could impact fertility, 42% (p = 0.010) lived in urban settings, 46% (p > 0.001) were married, and 38% (p = 0.020) of individuals were born outside of the U.S. About 1/2 of the participants stated that more information and research conducted on the COVID-19 vaccines would encourage them to get vaccinated. A large portion of the U.S. population remain fearful of the potential side effects associated with the coronavirus vaccines and more specifically negative impacts to their future reproductive health. These results objectively evidence that fertility concerns are significantly contributing to vaccine hesitancy and may continue to be a barrier for years to come if no interventions are made. With almost half of the participants yearning for more information and research this highlights the need for intense investigation and publicly available data on the effect of coronavirus vaccines on fertility. No [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Conspiracy beliefs can be a major hindrance causing a lack of compliance with public health measures, including vaccination. We examined the relationship between individual attitudes, socio-demographic factors, conspiracy beliefs, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and preferences about pandemic policies in Europe. Methods We used data from the 10th round of the European Social Survey, conducted in 2021–22 in 17 European countries. Both a conspiracy index and a personal attitude index for each participant were built by using a Latent Class Analysis model. Then, we used a multilevel regression model to investigate the relationship between a personal attitudes index, socio-demographic factors and country of residence, and a conspiracy index. We descriptively analyse the relationship between the conspiracy index and four main items related to COVID-19. Results We found that a higher probability of believing in conspiracy theories was associated with male gender, middle age, lower levels of education, unemployment, lower levels of trust and satisfaction and right-wing political orientation. The country of residence was a contextual factor, with eastern European countries having higher levels of conspiracy beliefs. Individuals who expressed conspiracy beliefs had lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake, were less satisfied with the way health services coped with the pandemic and less supportive of governmental restrictions. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the factors associated with conspiracy beliefs and their potential impact on public health. The findings highlight the need for effective strategies to address the underlying factors driving conspiracy beliefs, reduce vaccine hesitancy and promote acceptance of public health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The issue of reluctance towards vaccination is becoming more worrisome. Health care workers (HCWs) are the primary point of contact with individuals who make decisions about vaccination. Therefore, it is crucial that HCWs receive sufficient training and periodic updates. The main objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the HCWs' training needs in vaccination and vaccine uptake. Methods In February 2022, a search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The search included papers written in English, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, French and Romanian, with a publication date ranging from 1 January 2011 to 24 February 2022 and conducted in Europe. To assess the methodological quality of the papers, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies was utilized. Results The search of scientific literature yielded 640 outcomes on PubMed, 556 on Scopus and 15 on Google Scholar, for a total of 1211 records. After eliminating duplicates, screening titles and abstracts and evaluating the full text of the articles, only 25 of them were found suitable for inclusion. The studies' overall quality ranged from moderate to good. The majority of the research emphasized the need for improved knowledge of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccine efficacy, immunization schedules and vaccine adverse effects. Conclusions It is vital to prioritize educational programmes on vaccinology and vaccine hesitancy for HCWs, with the objective of improving their knowledge, awareness and attitudes. Addressing the diversity of educational backgrounds, roles and training requirements of HCWs involved in vaccination across Europe is a critical issue that must be tackled for future initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus have been available since December 2020. Vaccination rates among hospitalized patients at our institution remained low at approximately 40%, thus we sought to understand the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in our patient population. Methods All unvaccinated adult patients admitted to our hospital were asked to participate in a survey to assess coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy. Updated vaccination status was collected at the end of the study. Results Ninety-seven patients agreed to participate, 34% of which were SARS-CoV-2 positive based on results from polymerase chain reaction tests. Of the 64 participants eligible to receive the vaccine, 57.8% were agreeable but only 27% received the vaccine before discharge. Conclusion Many patients are willing to receive the vaccine, and hospitalization provides a unique opportunity to interact with patients who have been otherwise unaware, unable, or unwilling to pursue vaccination outside of the hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been recommended for all Americans 12 years of age and older. However, uptake remains suboptimal with only 17% of the United States (US) population boosted as of May 2023. This is a critical public health challenge for mitigating the ongoing effects of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 booster uptake is not currently well understood, and few studies in the US have explored the vaccination process for booster uptake in a 'post-pandemic' context. This study fills gaps in the literature through qualitative analysis of interviews with a racially/ethnically diverse sample of Arkansans who received the COVID-19 vaccine main series and expressed intent to receive a booster (n  = 14), but had not yet received the COVID-19 booster at the time we recruited them. All but one did not receive the booster by the time of the interview. Participants described influences on their vaccination behavior and uptake of boosters including reduced feelings of urgency; continued concerns about the side effects; social contagion as a driver of urgency; increasing practical barriers to access and missing provider recommendations. Our findings highlight the importance of considering vaccination as an ongoing, dynamic process drawing on past/current attitudes, prior experience, perceptions of risk and urgency and practical barriers. Based on these findings, healthcare providers should continue to provide strong, consistent recommendations for COVID-19 boosters to patients, even among those with histories of vaccine uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We investigated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) in the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares and AID-related treatment modifications were analysed upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine. Results Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, P  = 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, P  = 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, P  < 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination disease flares were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n  = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a disease flare were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and for the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Older adults have been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While COVID-19 vaccines are effective for reducing mortality and severe complications, vaccine hesitancy remains a substantial concern particularly among older adults. This was a qualitative study to explore how Chinese older adults reached a decision to delay or refuse the COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong. Methods Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 older adults aged ≥60 years who had never received COVID-19 vaccines. The grounded theory approach guided the selection of informants, data collection, data analysis, and report writing. Results Older adults' vaccine hesitancy and resistance weaved into the context of lacking sufficient decisional support and attitude roots of negative perception of aging, fatalistic risk attitudes, present-oriented time perspectives, and negative values on western biomedicine. Attitude roots were used as the decisional anchors to further shape older adults' peripheral processing of vaccine-related information, resulting into a spectrum of vaccine-resistant and vaccine-hesitant attitudes. While participants refused or delayed COVID-19 vaccination, they engaged in alternative coping strategies to regain self-control and justify their vaccination disengagement in the pandemic. Discussion Interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in older adults should focus on addressing attitude roots and strengthening the connectivity of older adults with family, doctors, and government to engage older adults in the vaccination decision making. Risk communication should shift to provide more personal relevant information in a caring style, meet older adults' preference for peripheral information processing, and address their existing misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women/people were identified as an at-risk group of severe COVID-19 disease. Consequently, vaccine uptake among this group became a public health priority. However, the relationship between pregnancy and vaccination decision-making is complex, and the heightened uncertainty and anxiety produced through the pandemic further exacerbated this immunization decision. This study explores COVID-19 vaccination decision-making during pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand by using an online story completion survey tool. Ninety-five responses were received and analysed using thematic analysis where ambiguity was a core facet within and across stories. Three ambiguities were identified, including who makes the decision (agential), what the risks are (risk) and how immunity to this threat can be best achieved (immunity). We discuss the implications of this ambiguity and how the strong desire to protect the baby persisted across accounts. The recognition of the rather persistent ambiguity in vaccination decision-making helps conceptualize influencing factors taken into account in a more nuanced manner for further research, public health campaigns and health professionals. Future public health campaigns can consider redistributing responsibility for vaccination decision-making in pregnancy, traverse an either/or perspective of 'natural' and 'artificial' immunity-boosting and consider how risk is perceived through anecdotes and viral immediacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad166 Dear Editor, COVID-19 continues to pose a risk to patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) due to the high prevalence of comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19 disease.[1] Although vaccination is an effective primary defence against adverse outcomes, global COVID-19 vaccine uptake is approximately 69%.[2] Limited data exist on the attitudes of patients with HS toward the COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant respondents ( I n i = 11/47; 23%) were significantly less likely than vaccine acceptors ( I n i = 635/1233; 51.5%) to report having a close relative or friend who had severe COVID-19 infection ( I P i < 0.001) (Figure 1). Compared with COVID-19 vaccine-accepting respondents ( I n i = 554/1276; 43.4%), COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant respondents ( I n i = 24/47; 51%) more frequently reported being "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with their HS care on a 5-point Likert scale ( I P i = 0.01), and significantly more often declined influenza vaccination [ I n i = 434/1276 (34.0%) vs. I n i = 25/47 (53%); I P i < 0.01)]. [Extracted from the article]

For a public health campaign to succeed, the public sector is expected to debunk the misinformation transparently and vividly and guide the citizens. The present study focuses on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in Hong Kong, a non-Western society with a developed economy and sufficient vaccine supply but high vaccine hesitancy. Inspired by the Health Belief Model (HBM) and research on source transparency and the use of visuals in the debunking, the present study examines the COVID-19 vaccine misinformation debunking messages published by the official social media and online channels of the public sector of Hong Kong (n = 126) over 18 months (1 November 2020 to 20 April 2022) during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Results showed that the most frequently occurring misinformation themes were misleading claims about the risks and side effects of vaccination, followed by (non-)effectiveness of the vaccines and the (un)-necessity of vaccination. Among the HBM constructs, barriers and benefits of vaccination were mentioned the most, while self-efficacy was the least addressed. Compared with the early stage of the vaccination campaign, an increasing number of posts contained susceptibility, severity or cues to action. Most debunking statements did not disclose any external sources. The public sector actively used illustrations, with affective illustrations outnumbering cognitive ones. Suggestions for improving the quality of misinformation debunking during public health campaigns are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective A succession of cases have reported flares of adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), raising concerns. We aimed to investigate the impact of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on disease activity in patients with AOSD. Methods We prospectively enrolled clinically inactive AOSD patients visiting the outpatient clinics of our department. The patients received SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, Sinopharm, Beijing, China) voluntarily. The occurrence of relapse in the participants was recorded during the follow-up period, and a propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to compare the relapse rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Localized and systemic symptoms were assessed in the vaccinated patients. Results A total of 122 patients with inactive AOSD were included, of which 49.2% (n  = 60) voluntarily received the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The relapse rate did not increase significantly in vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients (after PSM: 6.8% vs 6.8%), and no relapse occurred within 1 month after vaccination. No obvious adverse reactions were reported in 75.0% of the participants, and none of the patients reported severe reactions. Conclusion Increased disease activity or relapse following vaccination with inactivated SARS–CoV-2 was rare in patients with inactive AOSD. Local and systemic adverse reactions were found to be mild and self-limiting. These safety profiles of inactivated SARS–CoV-2 vaccines in patients with AOSD may assist in eliminating vaccine hesitancy and increase the vaccination rate against SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses an immediate danger to global health. If unaddressed, the current upsurge in AMR threatens to reverse the achievements in reducing the infectious disease–associated mortality and morbidity associated with antimicrobial treatment. Consequently, there is an urgent need for strategies to prevent or slow the progress of AMR. Vaccines potentially contribute both directly and indirectly to combating AMR. Modeling studies have indicated significant gains from vaccination in reducing AMR burdens for specific pathogens, reducing mortality/morbidity, and economic loss. However, quantifying the real impact of vaccines in these reductions is challenging because many of the study designs used to evaluate the contribution of vaccination programs are affected by significant background confounding, and potential selection and information bias. Here, we discuss challenges in assessing vaccine impact to reduce AMR burdens and suggest potential approaches for vaccine impact evaluation nested in vaccine trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]