Search

• COVID-19 non-vaccination in parents correlates with more negative views on childhood vaccines over time. • There is spillover between beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine and routine childhood vaccines. • More negative beliefs about childhood vaccines over time clustered in places with low COVID-19 vaccination rates. • Parental experiences with COVID-19 vaccination and disease are predictive of beliefs about childhood vaccines. It is unclear how hesitancy towards pediatric vaccines has changed quantitatively since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and if changes are more readily apparent in clusters of low COVID-19 vaccination. In this study, we assess how clusters of low COVID-19 vaccination correlate with changing parental beliefs about childhood vaccines. A cross-sectional, opt-in, internet-based survey of parents resident in the U.S. was conducted during August-September 2022. Our survey measured changes in beliefs about childhood vaccine safety, importance, and effectiveness since the start of COVID-19. We also measured parents' perceived vaccination rates in the community, assessing its relationship with changing vaccination perceptions using Rao-Scott chi-square tests, and multinomial logistic regression models. Among 310 parents of children 0–17 years old, 11 % (95 % CI: 7 %, 15 %) believed that childhood vaccines are less safe, 12 % (95 % CI: 8 %, 17 %) less important, and 13 % (95 % CI: 9 %, 18 %) less effective since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. About 9 % (95 % CI: 5 %, 12 %) stated COVID-19 vaccination coverage was low in their community. Among those who stated COVID-19 vaccination coverage was low, 38 % reported believing childhood vaccines were less effective (vs 12 % of those who stated vaccination coverage was high). This corresponds to 4.34 times greater odds of believing childhood vaccines were less effective since the start of the pandemic (95 % CI: 1.38, 13.73) in those who believe COVID-19 vaccination coverage to be low in their community vs high. Our study demonstrates that parental perceptions about childhood vaccines have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic through geographic and social clustering of non-vaccination. Beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine have spillover with beliefs about childhood vaccines, and more negative beliefs may be clustering in areas with low vaccination coverage, which could predispose the area to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Health care workers completed an online survey. • Vaccine uptake was higher in nurse practitioners and physician assistants. • Working close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. • Vaccine uptake was associated with personal experiences, not work experiences. Although COVID-19 vaccinations have been available to hospital workers in the U.S. since December 2020, coverage is far from universal, even in groups with patient contact. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19-related experiences at work and in the personal lives of nurses, allied health workers, and non-clinical staff with patient contact, and to assess whether these experiences relate to COVID-19 vaccination. Health care workers at a large Midwestern hospital in the U.S. were contacted to participate in an online cross-sectional survey during February 2021. A logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for vaccination by different experiences, and we assessed mediation through models that also included measures of risk perceptions. Among 366 nurse practitioners / nurse midwives / physician assistant, 1,698 nurses, 1,798 allied health professionals, and 1,307 non-clinical staff with patient contact, the proportions who had received or intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were 94 %, 87 %, 82 %, and 88 %, respectively. Working and being physically close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. Vaccination intent was significantly lower among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis vs not (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.40) and higher for those who knew close family members of friends hospitalized or died of COVID-19 (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.10, 1.60). Even when COVID-19 vaccination was available in February 2021, a substantial minority of hospital workers with patient contact did not intend to be vaccinated. Moreover, their experiences working close to COVID-19 patients were not significantly related to vaccination intent. Instead, personal experiences with family members and friends were associated with vaccination intent through changes in risk perceptions. Interventions to increase uptake among hospital workers should emphasize protection of close family members or friends and the severity of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is important to distinguish between apprehensions that lead to vaccine rejection and those that do not. In this study, we (1) identifed latent classes of individuals by vaccination attitudes, and (2) compared classes of individuals by sociodemographic characteristics COVID-19 vaccination, and risk reduction behaviors. The COVID-19 Coping Study is a longitudinal cohort of US adults aged ≥ 55 years (n = 2358). We categorized individuals into three classes based on the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale using latent class analysis (LCA). The associations between class membership and sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination, and other behaviors were assessed using chi-square tests. In total, 88.9% were Vaccine Acceptors, 8.6% were Vaccine Ambivalent, and 2.5% Vaccine Rejectors. At the end, 90.7% of Acceptors, 62.4% of the Ambivalent, and 30.7% of the Rejectors had been vaccinated. The Ambivalent were more likely to be Black or Hispanic, and adopted social distancing and mask wearing behaviors intermediate to that of the Acceptors and Rejectors. Targeting the Vaccine Ambivalent may be an efficient way of increasing vaccination coverage. Controlling the spread of disease during a pandemic requires tailoring vaccine messaging to their concerns, e.g., through working with trusted community leaders, while promoting other risk reduction behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International travel may facilitate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). The study describes clusters of COVID‐19 cases within Chinese tour groups travelling in Europe January 16–28. We compared characteristics of cases and non‐cases to determine transmission dynamics. The index case travelled from Wuhan, China, to Europe on 16 January 2020, and to Shanghai, China, on 27 January 2020, within a tour group (group A). Tour groups with the same outbound flight (group B) or the same tourism venue (group D) and all Chinese passengers on the inbound flight (group C) were investigated. The outbreak involved 11 confirmed cases, 10 suspected cases and six tourists who remained healthy. Group A, involving seven confirmed cases and six suspected cases, consisted of familial transmission followed by propagative transmission. There was less pathogenicity with propagative transmission than with familial transmission. Disease was transmitted in shared outbound flights, shopping venues within Europe and inbound flight back to China. The novel coronavirus caused clustered cases of COVID‐19 in tour groups. When tourism and travel opens up, governments will need to improve screening at airports and consider increased surveillance of tour groups—particularly those with older tour members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used contact tracing to document how COVID‐19 was transmitted across 5 generations involving 10 cases, starting with an individual who became ill on January 27. We calculated the incubation period of the cases as the interval between infection and development of symptoms. The median incubation period was 6.0 days (interquartile range, 3.5‐9.5 days). The last two generations were infected in public places, 3 and 4 days prior to the onset of illness in their infectors. Both had certain underlying conditions and comorbidity. Further identification of how individuals transmit prior to being symptomatic will have important consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study assessed changes in behaviors/attitudes related to the COVID-19. With the understanding that behaviors and vaccine decision-making could contribute to global spread of infectious diseases, this study collected several waves of internet-based surveys from individuals in the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. The aims of this study were to (1) characterize the relationship between the epidemiology of disease and changes over time in risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards hygienic behaviors; (2) examine if risk perceptions affect acceptance of less-than-ideal vaccines; and (3) contrast adherence to public health recommendations across countries which have had different governmental responses to the outbreak. Data description: We conducted cross-sectional online surveys in six countries from March 2020 to April 2021. By the end of June 2021, there will be six waves of surveys for the United States and China, and four waves for the rest of countries. There are common sets of questions for all countries, however, some questions were adapted to reflect local situations and some questions were designed intentionally for specific countries to capture different COVID-19 mitigation actions. Participants were asked about their adherence towards countermeasures, risk perceptions, and acceptance of a hypothetical vaccine for COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, much of the US was placed under social distancing guidelines during March 2020. We characterized risk perceptions and adherence to social distancing recommendations in March 2020 among US adults aged 18+ in an online survey with age and gender quotas to match the general US population (N = 713). We used multivariable logistic and linear regression to estimate associations between age (by generational cohort) and these outcomes. The median perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 within the next month was 32%, and 65% of individuals were practicing more social distancing than before the outbreak. Baby Boomers had lower perceived risk than Millennials (-10.6%, 95% CI: -16.2%, -5.0%), yet were more frequently social distancing (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.56). Public health outreach should focus on raising compliance with social distancing recommendations, especially among high risk groups. Efforts to address risk perceptions alone may be inadequate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]