Search

Most work on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has focused on its attitudinal and demographic correlates among individuals, but the characteristics of vaccines themselves also appear to be important. People are more willing to take vaccines with higher reported levels of efficacy and safety. Has this dynamic sparked comparative hesitancy towards specific COVID-19 vaccines? We conduct a series of cross-sectional survey experiments to test for brand-based differences in perceived effectiveness, perceived safety, and vaccination intention. Examining more than 6,200 individuals in a series of cross-sectional surveys, we find considerably more reluctance to take the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines compared to those from Pfizer and Moderna if offered, despite all vaccines being approved and deemed safe and effective by a federal regulator. Comparative hesitancy towards these vaccines grew over the course of fielding as controversy arose over their link to extremely rare, but serious side effects. Comparative vaccine-specific hesitancy is strongest among people who are usually most open to mass vaccination efforts. Its effects are substantial: most respondents reported a willingness to wait months for their preferred vaccine rather than receive either the AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine immediately. Our findings call for additional research on the determinants and consequences of COVID-19 vaccine-specific hesitancy and communication strategies to minimize this challenge., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Peter Loewen reports financial support was provided by 19toZero. Peter Loewen reports financial support was provided by Department of Canadian Heritage. Peter Loewen reports a relationship with 19toZero that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Eric Merkley reports a relationship with 19toZero that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Widespread misperceptions about COVID-19 and the novel coronavirus threaten to exacerbate the severity of the pandemic. We conducted preregistered survey experiments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada examining the effectiveness of fact-checks that seek to correct these false or unsupported beliefs. Across three countries with differing levels of political conflict over the pandemic response, we demonstrate that fact-checks reduce targeted misperceptions, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims, and have minimal spillover effects on the accuracy of related beliefs. However, these reductions in COVID-19 misperception beliefs do not persist over time in panel data even after repeated exposure. These results suggest that fact-checks can successfully change the COVID-19 beliefs of the people who would benefit from them most but that their effects are ephemeral., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: A variety of public health measures have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada to reduce contact between individuals. The objective of this study was to provide empirical contact pattern data to evaluate the impact of public health measures, the degree to which social contacts rebounded to normal levels, as well as direct public health efforts toward age- and location-specific settings., Methods: Four population-based cross-sectional surveys were administered to members of a paid panel representative of Canadian adults by age, gender, official language, and region of residence during May (Survey 1), July (Survey 2), September (Survey 3), and December (Survey 4) 2020. A total of 4981 (Survey 1), 2493 (Survey 2), 2495 (Survey 3), and 2491 (Survey 4) respondents provided information about the age and setting for each direct contact made in a 24-h period. Contact matrices were constructed and contacts for those under the age of 18 years imputed. The next generation matrix approach was used to estimate the reproduction number (R t ) for each survey. Respondents with children under 18 years estimated the number of contacts their children made in school and extracurricular settings., Results: Estimated R t values were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.69) for May, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.68) for July, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.63-1.52) for September, and 0.81 (0.47-1.17) for December. The highest proportion of reported contacts occurred within the home (51.3% in May), in 'other' locations (49.2% in July) and at work (66.3 and 65.4% in September and December). Respondents with children reported an average of 22.7 (95% CI: 21.1-24.3) (September) and 19.0 (95% CI 17.7-20.4) (December) contacts at school per day per child in attendance., Conclusion: The skewed distribution of reported contacts toward workplace settings in September and December combined with the number of reported school-related contacts suggest that these settings represent important opportunities for transmission emphasizing the need to support and ensure infection control procedures in both workplaces and schools., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Importance: Ensuring widespread uptake of available COVID-19 vaccinations, each with different safety and efficacy profiles, is essential to combating the unfolding pandemic., Objective: To test communication interventions that may encourage the uptake of less-preferred vaccines., Design, Setting, and Participants: This online survey was conducted from March 24 to 30, 2021, using a nonprobability convenience sample of Canadian citizens aged 18 years or older, with quota sampling to match 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks on age, gender, region, and language. Respondents completed a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment with random assignment of brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson), information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic infection (yes or no), and information about the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no) before being asked about their willingness to receive their assigned vaccine and their beliefs about its effectiveness., Exposures: Respondents were randomly assigned a vaccine brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson) and information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (yes or no) and at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents' self-reported likelihood of taking their assigned vaccine if offered (response categories: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely, scaled 0-1) and their beliefs about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness (response categories: very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or not at all effective, scaled 0-1) were measured., Results: A total of 2556 Canadian adults responded to the survey (median [IQR] age, 50 [34-63] years; 1339 women [52%]). The self-reported likelihood of taking an assigned AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine was higher for respondents given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) and lower among those given information about its overall effectiveness at preventing symptomatic transmission (b, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00), compared with those who were not given the information. Perceived effectiveness was also higher among those given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05) and lower among those given information about their assigned vaccine's overall efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection (b, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03), compared with those who were not given this information. The interaction between these treatments was neither substantively nor statistically significant., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that providing information on the effectiveness of less-preferred vaccines at preventing death from COVID-19 is associated with more confidence in their effectiveness and less vaccine-specific hesitancy. These results can inform public health communication strategies to reduce hesitancy toward specific COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: The effectiveness of public health interventions for mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on individual attitudes, compliance, and the level of support available to allow for compliance with these measures. The aim of this study was to describe attitudes and behaviours towards the Canadian COVID-19 public health response, and identify risk-modifying behaviours based on socio-demographic characteristics., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered in May 2020 to members of a paid panel representative of the Canadian population by age, gender, official language, and region of residence. A total of 4981 respondents provided responses for indicators of self-reported risk perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours towards COVID-19 public health measures., Results: More than 90% of respondents reported confidence in the ability to comply with a variety of public health measures. However, only 51% reported preparedness for illness in terms of expectation to work if sick or access to paid sick days. Risk perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours varied by demographic variables. Men, younger age groups, and those in the paid workforce were less likely to consider public health measures to be effective, and had less confidence in their ability to comply. Approximately 80% of respondents reported that parents provided childcare and 52% reported that parents in the workforce provided childcare while schools were closed., Conclusion: Policies to help address issues of public adherence include targeted messaging for men and younger age groups, social supports for those who need to self-isolate, changes in workplace policies to discourage presenteeism, and provincially co-ordinated masking and safe school policies.

Anti-intellectualism (the generalized distrust of experts and intellectuals) is an important concept in explaining the public's engagement with advice from scientists and experts. We ask whether it has shaped the mass public's response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We provide evidence of a consistent connection between anti-intellectualism and COVID-19 risk perceptions, social distancing, mask usage, misperceptions and information acquisition using a representative survey of 27,615 Canadians conducted from March to July 2020. We exploit a panel component of our design (N = 4,910) to strongly link anti-intellectualism and within-respondent change in mask usage. Finally, we provide experimental evidence of anti-intellectualism's importance in information search behaviour with two conjoint studies (N ~ 2,500) that show that preferences for COVID-19 news and COVID-19 information from experts dissipate among respondents with higher levels of anti-intellectual sentiment. Anti-intellectualism poses a fundamental challenge in maintaining and increasing public compliance with expert-guided COVID-19 health directives.