Search

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue Addressed: COVID‐19 vaccination is the cornerstone of managing Australia's COVID‐19 pandemic and the success of the vaccination program depends on high vaccination coverage. This paper examined differences in COVID‐19 vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy for people with disability, long‐term health conditions, and carers – subgroups that were prioritised in Australia's vaccination program. Methods: Using data from 2400 Australians who participated in two waves of the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey in April and May 2021, we described vaccination coverage and hesitancy among people with disability, severe mental health conditions, severe long‐term health conditions, frequent need for assistance with everyday activities, and carers. Results: Vaccination coverage was estimated to be 8.2% in the population overall and was similar for people with disability, those with frequent need for assistance, and carers. It was higher for people with severe long‐term health conditions (13.4%) and lower for people with severe mental health conditions (4.3%). Vaccine hesitancy was high overall (35.6%) and was similarly high across the priority groups, with only small differences for people with disability, severe long‐term health conditions and frequent need for assistance. Conclusions: This study highlights a lack of difference in vaccination coverage for people with disability, long‐term health conditions, and carers compared to the general population. So what?: Sub‐optimal vaccination coverage for people in the priority groups leaves many people at significant risk of serious disease or death if exposed to COVID‐19, particularly in light of easing of disease‐control restrictions across Australia and the emergence of new variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People who inject drugs may be at higher risk of COVID‐19 transmission and more severe negative health outcomes following COVID‐19 infection. Early research on hypothetical COVID‐19 vaccines suggests this population may be less likely to accept vaccination. This commentary extends this research by presenting vaccine intention data from Illicit Drug Reporting System interviews conducted in June–July 2021, in the early stages of vaccine rollout, with people in Australia who inject drugs (N = 888). Half the sample (48%, n = 419) reported that they were hesitant to receive the COVID‐19 vaccine, with key barriers relating to vaccine safety and side effect concerns. This level of hesitancy is substantially higher than that of the general population at a similar time. While we note that the subsequent Delta variant‐driven third wave of cases in Australia and efforts to increase population vaccination coverage may have altered intent in this group, this level of hesitancy warrants a targeted strategy to mitigate vaccine‐related concerns and maximise uptake. Ideally, this should comprise an inclusive health response that is peer‐led, with peer‐based organisations ideally positioned to direct immunisation service delivery and provide vaccine‐related messaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children with comorbidities are at greater risk of severe influenza outcomes compared with healthy children. In Australia, influenza vaccination was funded for those with comorbidities from 2010 and all children aged <5 years from 2018. Influenza vaccine coverage remains inadequate in children with and without comorbidities. Methods: Children ≤16 years admitted with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza at sentinel hospitals were evaluated (2010–2019). Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of severe outcomes. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using the modified incidence density test‐negative design. Results: Overall, 6057 influenza‐confirmed hospitalized cases and 3974 test‐negative controls were included. Influenza A was the predominant type (68.7%). Comorbidities were present in 40.8% of cases. Children with comorbidities were at increased odds of ICU admission, respiratory support, longer hospitalizations, and mortality. Specific comorbidities including neurological and cardiac conditions increasingly predisposed children to severe outcomes. Influenza vaccine coverage in influenza negative children with and without comorbidities was low (33.5% and 17.9%, respectively). Coverage improved following introduction of universal influenza vaccine programs for children <5 years. Similar vaccine effectiveness was demonstrated in children with (55% [95% confidence interval (CI): 45; 63%]) and without comorbidities (57% [(95%CI: 44; 67%]). Conclusions: Comorbidities were present in 40.8% of influenza‐confirmed admissions and were associated with more severe outcomes. Children with comorbidities were more likely experience severe influenza with ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in‐hospital morality. Despite demonstrated vaccine effectiveness in those with and without comorbidities, vaccine coverage was suboptimal. Interventions to increase vaccination are expected to reduce severe influenza outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]