Search

BackgroundVaccine uptake differs between social groups. Mobile vaccination units (MV-units) were deployed in the Netherlands by municipal health services in neighbourhoods with low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.AimWe aimed to evaluate the impact of MV-units on vaccine uptake in neighbourhoods with low vaccine uptake.MethodsWe used the Dutch national-level registry of COVID-19 vaccinations (CIMS) and MV-unit deployment registrations containing observations in 253 neighbourhoods where MV-units were deployed and 890 contiguous neighbourhoods (total observations: 88,543 neighbourhood-days). A negative binomial regression with neighbourhood-specific temporal effects using splines was used to study the effect.ResultsDuring deployment, the increase in daily vaccination rate in targeted neighbourhoods ranged from a factor 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-2.2) in urbanised neighbourhoods to 14.5 (95% CI: 11.6-18.0) in rural neighbourhoods. The effects were larger in neighbourhoods with more voters for the Dutch conservative Reformed Christian party but smaller in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of people with non-western migration backgrounds. The absolute increase in uptake over the complete intervention period ranged from 0.22 percentage points (95% CI: 0.18-0.26) in the most urbanised neighbourhoods to 0.33 percentage point (95% CI: 0.28-0.37) in rural neighbourhoods.ConclusionDeployment of MV-units increased daily vaccination rate, particularly in rural neighbourhoods, with longer travel distance to permanent vaccination locations. This public health intervention shows promise to reduce geographic and social health inequalities, but more proactive and long-term deployment is required to identify its potential to substantially contribute to overall vaccination rates at country level.

Background: We developed a system to automatically classify stance towards vaccination in Twitter messages, with a focus on messages with a negative stance. Such a system makes it possible to monitor the ongoing stream of messages on social media, offering actionable insights into public hesitance with respect to vaccination. At the moment, such monitoring is done by means of regular sentiment analysis with a poor performance on detecting negative stance towards vaccination. For Dutch Twitter messages that mention vaccination-related key terms, we annotated their stance and feeling in relation to vaccination (provided that they referred to this topic). Subsequently, we used these coded data to train and test different machine learning set-ups. With the aim to best identify messages with a negative stance towards vaccination, we compared set-ups at an increasing dataset size and decreasing reliability, at an increasing number of categories to distinguish, and with different classification algorithms., Results: We found that Support Vector Machines trained on a combination of strictly and laxly labeled data with a more fine-grained labeling yielded the best result, at an F1-score of 0.36 and an Area under the ROC curve of 0.66, considerably outperforming the currently used sentiment analysis that yielded an F1-score of 0.25 and an Area under the ROC curve of 0.57. We also show that the recall of our system could be optimized to 0.60 at little loss of precision., Conclusion: The outcomes of our study indicate that stance prediction by a computerized system only is a challenging task. Nonetheless, the model showed sufficient recall on identifying negative tweets so as to reduce the manual effort of reviewing messages. Our analysis of the data and behavior of our system suggests that an approach is needed in which the use of a larger training dataset is combined with a setting in which a human-in-the-loop provides the system with feedback on its predictions.

This study aims to quantify and compare preferences of citizens from different European countries for vaccination programme characteristics during pandemics, caused by pathogens which are transmitted through respiratory droplets. Internet panel members, nationally representative based on age, sex, educational level and region, of four European Union Member States (Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden, n = 2,068) completed an online discrete choice experiment. These countries, from different geographical areas of Europe, were chosen because of the availability of high-quality Internet panels and because of the cooperation between members of the project entitled Effective Communication in Outbreak Management: development of an evidence-based tool for Europe (ECOM). Data were analysed using panel latent class regression models. In the case of a severe pandemic scenario, vaccine effectiveness was the most important characteristic determining vaccination preference in all countries, followed by the body that advises on vaccination. In Sweden, the advice of family and/or friends and the advice of physicians strongly affected vaccine preferences, in contrast to Poland and Spain, where the advice of (international) health authorities was more decisive. Irrespective of pandemic scenario or vaccination programme characteristics, the predicted vaccination uptakes were lowest in Sweden, and highest in Poland. To increase vaccination uptake during future pandemics, the responsible authorities should align with other important stakeholders in the country and communicate in a coordinated manner.

Background: Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in studies in healthcare research but there is still little empirical evidence for the predictive value of these hypothetical situations in similar real life circumstances. The aim of this paper is to compare the stated preferences in a DCE and the accompanying questionnaire with the revealed preferences of young parents who have to decide whether to vaccinate their new born child against hepatitis B., Methods: A DCE asking parents to decide in which scenario they would be more inclined to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B. The stated preference was estimated by comparing the per respondent utility of the most realistic scenario in which parents could choose to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B, with the utility of the opt-out, based on the mixed logit model from the DCE. This stated preference was compared with the actual behaviour of the parents concerning the vaccination of their new born child., Results: In 80% of the respondents the stated and revealed preferences corresponded. The positive predictive value is 85% but the negative predictive value is 26%., Conclusions: The predictive value of the DCE in this study is satisfactory for predicting the positive choice but not for predicting the negative choice. However, the behaviour in this study is exceptional in the sense that most people chose to vaccinate. Future studies should focus on behaviours with a larger variance in the population.

Objective: This study aimed to identify characteristics that affect parental decisions about rotavirus vaccination, to determine the relative importance of those characteristics and subsequently to estimate vaccination coverage for different implementation strategies., Methods: A Discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was sent to the parents of 1250 newborns aged 6 weeks (response rate 37.3%). Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five included rotavirus vaccine and implementation characteristics; vaccine effectiveness, frequency of severe side effects, protection duration, the healthcare facility that administrates vaccination and out-of-pocket costs. Based on the utility functions of the mixed-logit model, the potential vaccination coverage was estimated for different vaccine scenarios and implementation strategies., Results: All characteristics, except for healthcare facility that administrates vaccination, influenced parental willingness to vaccinate their newborn against rotavirus. Parents were willing to trade 20.2 percentage points vaccine effectiveness for the lowest frequency of severe side effects (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000) or 20.8 percentage points for a higher protection duration. Potential vaccination coverage ranged between 22.7 and 86.2%, depending on vaccine scenario (i.e., vaccine effectiveness and protection duration) and implementation strategy (i.e., out-of-pocket costs and healthcare facility that administrates vaccination)., Conclusions: When deciding about vaccination against rotavirus, parents are mostly driven by the out-of-pocket costs, vaccine effectiveness, protection duration, and frequency of severe side effects. The highest vaccination coverage is expected for a vaccine with high effectiveness and protection duration that is implemented within the current National Immunization Program context. Implementation of the same rotavirus vaccine in the free market will result in lowest coverage., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preventive measures are essential to limit the spread of new viruses; their uptake is key to their success. However, the vaccination uptake in pandemic outbreaks is often low. We aim to elicit how disease and vaccination characteristics determine preferences of the general public for new pandemic vaccinations., Methods: In an internet-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) a representative sample of 536 participants (49% participation rate) from the Dutch population was asked for their preference for vaccination programs in hypothetical communicable disease outbreaks. We used scenarios based on two disease characteristics (susceptibility to and severity of the disease) and five vaccination program characteristics (effectiveness, safety, advice regarding vaccination, media attention, and out-of-pocket costs). The DCE design was based on a literature review, expert interviews and focus group discussions. A panel latent class logit model was used to estimate which trade-offs individuals were willing to make., Results: All above mentioned characteristics proved to influence respondents' preferences for vaccination. Preference heterogeneity was substantial. Females who stated that they were never in favor of vaccination made different trade-offs than males who stated that they were (possibly) willing to get vaccinated. As expected, respondents preferred and were willing to pay more for more effective vaccines, especially if the outbreak was more serious (€6-€39 for a 10% more effective vaccine). Changes in effectiveness, out-of-pocket costs and in the body that advises the vaccine all substantially influenced the predicted uptake., Conclusions: We conclude that various disease and vaccination program characteristics influence respondents' preferences for pandemic vaccination programs. Agencies responsible for preventive measures during pandemics can use the knowledge that out-of-pocket costs and the way advice is given affect vaccination uptake to improve their plans for future pandemic outbreaks. The preference heterogeneity shows that information regarding vaccination needs to be targeted differently depending on gender and willingness to get vaccinated.

From October 2011, The Netherlands started to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B. The aim of the present study was to get insight in the psychosocial factors that determine parents' intention to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B, and to test whether intention to vaccinate is a good predictor of actual vaccination behaviour. In total, 2000 parents of newborns (0-2 weeks old) received a self-report questionnaire measuring intention towards hepatitis B vaccination and its psychosocial determinants (response rate 45.6%). Participants were invited for follow-up research and subsequently offered the opportunity to have their child vaccinated against hepatitis B. The findings showed that the large majority of parents intend to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B. The intention to vaccinate was most strongly determined by parents' attitude towards hepatitis B vaccination, which in turn was positively associated with perceived benefits of the vaccination and perceptions of the child's susceptibility to hepatitis B. The majority of the 246 parents that accepted the invitation for a follow-up study had their child vaccinated (83.7%). Intention was found to be a significant predictor of vaccination behaviour although less strong than expected. It is concluded that Dutch parents were positive towards hepatitis B vaccination in terms of both intention and behaviour. To further sustain parents' positive attitudes towards hepatitis B vaccination, educational campaigns should strengthen the benefits of vaccination along with emphasizing the child's risk to hepatitis B infection., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

High vaccination coverage is considered to be key in dealing with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy can limit uptake. We examined the specific coronavirus beliefs that persons have regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines and to what extent these beliefs explain COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We conducted a survey among 4,033 residents of the Netherlands that examined COVID-19 vaccination intentions and various beliefs. Random forest regression analysis explained 76% of the variance in vaccination intentions. The strongest determinant in the model was the belief the COVID-19 crisis will only end if many persons get vaccinated. Other strong determinants were beliefs about safety of vaccines, specifically in relation to vaccine development and approval process; (social) benefits of vaccination; social norms regarding vaccination behavior; and effectiveness of vaccines. We propose to address these specific beliefs in communications about COVID-19 vaccinations to stimulate vaccine uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In spring 2021, several countries, among which the Netherlands, suspended vaccinations against COVID-19 with the Vaxzevria vaccine from AstraZeneca after reports of rare but severe adverse events. This study investigates the influence of this suspension on the Dutch public's perceptions of COVID-19 vaccinations, trust in the government's vaccination campaign, and COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We conducted two surveys in a population of general Dutch public (18 +), one shortly before the pause of AstraZeneca vaccinations and one shortly thereafter (N eligible for analysis = 2628). Our results suggest no changes in perceptions nor intentions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines in general but do suggest a decline in trust in the government's vaccination campaign. In addition, after the suspension, perceptions of the AstraZeneca vaccines were more negative in comparison to those of COVID-19 vaccinations in general. AstraZeneca vaccination intentions were also considerably lower. These results stress the need to adapt vaccination policies to anticipated public perceptions and responses following a vaccine safety scare, as well as the importance of informing citizens about the possibility of very rare adverse events prior to the introduction of novel vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccination is generally considered the most direct way to restoring normal life after the outbreak of COVID-19, but the available COVID-19 vaccines are simultaneously embraced and dismissed. Mapping factors for vaccine hesitancy may help the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provide valuable insights for future pandemics. We investigate how characteristics of a COVID-19 vaccine affect the preferences of adult citizens in the Netherlands to take the vaccine directly, to refuse it outright, or to wait a few months and first look at the experiences of others. An online sample of 895 respondents participated between November 4th and November 10th, 2020 in a discrete choice experiment including the attributes: percentage of vaccinated individuals protected against COVID-19, month in which the vaccine would become available and the number of cases of mild and severe side effects. The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models. Respondents found it important that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available as soon as possible. However, the majority did not want to be the first in line and would rather wait for the experiences of others. The predicted uptake of a vaccine with the optimal combination of attributes was 87%, of whom 55% preferred to take the vaccine after a waiting period. This latter group tends to be lower-educated. Older respondents gave more weight to vaccine effectiveness than younger respondents. The willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high among adults in the Netherlands, but a considerable proportion prefers to delay their decision to vaccinate until experiences of others are known. Offering this wait-and-see group the opportunity to accept the invitation at a later moment may stimulate vaccination uptake. Our results further suggest that vaccination campaigns targeted at older citizens should focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine. • We conducted a choice experiment on vaccination preferences among Dutch citizens. • 87% accepts a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine that is available swiftly. • 55% of this group prefers to delay their decision to learn from others' experiences. • Respondents who preferred to wait tend to be lower-educated. • The vaccine's effectiveness is important for older respondents who prefer to wait. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]