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]

Achieving COVID-19 community protection (aka, herd immunity) in China may be challenging because many individuals remain unsure or are unwilling to be vaccinated. One potential means to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake is to essentially mandate vaccination by using existing mobile technologies that can prohibit unvaccinated individuals from certain public spaces. The "Health Code" is a ubiquitous mobile phone app in China that regulates freedom of travel based on individuals' predicted risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Green-colored codes indicate ability to travel unrestricted in low-risk regions; yellow-colored codes indicate prohibition from major public spaces and modes of public transportation. We examined the effects of a "Health Code"-based vaccine mandate on willingness to vaccinate for COVID-19 in China. In August 2020, an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among adults living in China. Participants completed up to six DCE choice sets, each containing two hypothetical COVID-19 vaccination scenario choices and a "do not vaccinate" choice. Half of the choice sets had a "Health Code" attribute that associated the "do not vaccinate" choice with a yellow Health Code implying restricted travel. Weighted, mixed effects multinomial logit regression was used to estimate preference utilities and predicted choice probabilities. Overall, 873 participants completed 4317 choice sets. Most participants attained at least college-level education (90.9%). 29.8% of participants were identified as vaccine hesitators (defined as being unsure or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccination). With and without the "Health Code"-based vaccine mandate, there was an 8.6% (85% CI: 6.4% − 10.92%) and 17.3% (85% CI:13.1% − 21.6%) respective predicted probability that vaccine hesitators would choose "do not vaccinate" over a common vaccination scenario currently in China (i.e., free, domestic vaccine, 80% effectiveness, 10% probability of fever side-effects, administered in a large hospital, two doses). Corresponding predicted probabilities for people who did not express vaccine hesitancy was 0.3% (93% CI: 0.0% − 14.3%) and 3.5% (93% CI:2.3% − 4.8%). The "Health Code"-based mandate significantly increased willingness to vaccinate when vaccine efficacy was greater than 60%. Among vaccine hesitators with higher educational attainment, willingness to vaccinate for COVID-19 appears to increase if mobile technology-based vaccine mandates prohibit unvaccinated individuals from public spaces and public transportation. However, such mandates may not increase willingness if perceived vaccine efficacy is low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy—the delay or refusal of vaccines despite their availability—has been linked to lower vaccination rates and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Using cross-sectional surveys of 78,725 parents and other family members in the United States, Nguyen et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(9):1626-1635) calculated the population attributable fraction (PAF) of vaccine hesitancy on nonreceipt of recommended childhood vaccines, including influenza vaccine. The PAF is readily calculated: p (rr − 1)/ rr, where p is the proportion of those hesitant among nonvaccinated individuals, and rr is the risk ratio of nonvaccination between those hesitant over those nonhesitant. By vaccine, the PAF ranged from 6.5% for nonreceipt of the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose to 31.3% for nonreceipt of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine dose 3. For nonreceipt of influenza vaccine, the PAF varied geographically, with relatively high values in some Northeast (e.g. New York at 22.6%) and Northwest (e.g. Oregon at 23.0%) states and lower values in certain Southern (e.g. Louisiana at 7.5%) and Mountain West (e.g. Utah at 8.8%) states. The PAF can elucidate the contribution of vaccine hesitancy on nonvaccination in different circumstances. Future studies can apply this technique in different populations and incorporate different measures of vaccine hesitancy. [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]

Background: Vaccine hesitancy has been little studied in low- and middle-income countries but is a potential concern because vaccine refusal may increase the burden of infectious diseases and impede control efforts. The aim of this study was to compare vaccine hesitancy between locals, long-time city residents, and non-locals, who have more recently moved to the city from either other urban or rural areas, in Shanghai, China. Methods: Parents of infants ≤3 months of age were surveyed at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China. Participants completed a paper questionnaire utilizing the 10-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which was developed by the World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization. Items were grouped based on internal consistency, and regressed onto demographic variables using a negative binomial model. Results: In total, 1,188 (92.5%) individuals participated. For most items on the scale, parents expressed positive beliefs about vaccines. However, about half of parents somewhat or strongly agreed that new vaccines carried more risks than older vaccines, and 71.6% somewhat or strongly agreed that they were concerned about serious adverse effects. Seven items from the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were highly correlated and mapped onto “lack of confidence”; the other three items were analysed separately. Compared to mothers, fathers had less lack of confidence (β: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.12, -0.01), and individuals living in the outer suburbs (β: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.25) and rural non-locals (β: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.18) had greater lack of confidence in vaccines compared to their urban or local counterparts, respectively. Discussion: Shanghai parents professed confidence in certain vaccine benefits, but vaccine messaging could focus on addressing misconceptions about vaccines for diseases no longer common, newer vaccines, and adverse effects associated with vaccination. These messages may need to be separately tailored to locals and non-locals, who have differing concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Several new vaccines have been introduced into China in recent years, but some parents in China have shown concerns about the scheduling of vaccinations for young infants. This study explores caregiver concerns about children receiving multiple vaccines during a single visit and about vaccine administration in infants <6 months, and assesses the degree to which these concerns are associated with ratings of the importance of different sources of vaccine information in Shanghai. Methods Caregivers of children 8 months to 7 years presenting at immunization clinics in Shanghai completed a survey about vaccine co-administration and vaccine administration <6 months of age. Respondents provided ratings of information from different sources (Internet, family/friends, other parents) and trust in doctors. We analyzed vaccine concerns using linear regression analyses that included these information sources after adjusting for socioeconomic variables. Results Among 618 caregivers, 64% were concerned about vaccine co-administration and 31% were concerned about vaccine administration to infants <6 months of age. Higher ratings of Internet as an important source of information were associated with greater concern about co-administration (β = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.22) and concern about administration at <6 months of age (β = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.28). Higher ratings given to information from other parents corresponded to 0.24 points greater concern about vaccine co-administration (95% CI: 0.04, 0.44). More trust in doctors and ratings of information from friends and family were not associated with vaccine concerns. Conclusions Caregiver concerns about vaccine scheduling may limit China’s flexibility to add vaccines to its official immunization schedule. Reporting information about vaccine safety on the Internet and bringing groups of parents together to discuss vaccines might help to ameliorate concerns about vaccine scheduling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychosocial underpinnings of vaccine hesitancy are complex. Research is needed to pinpoint the exact reasons why people hesitate to vaccinate themselves or their children against vaccine-preventable diseases. One possible reason are concerns that arise from a misunderstanding of vaccine science. We examined the impact of scientific reasoning on vaccine hesitancy and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination intent through a cross-sectional study of parents of vaccine-eligible children (N = 399) at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China. We assessed the relationship between science reasoning and both vaccine hesitancy and HPV vaccine acceptance using general additive models. We found a significant association between scientific reasoning and education level, with those with less than a high school education having a significantly lower scientific reasoning that those with a college education (ß = -1.31, p-value = 0.002). However, there was little evidence of a relationship between scientific reasoning and vaccine hesitancy. Scientific reasoning therefore appears not to exert primary influence on the formation of vaccine attitudes among the respondents surveyed. We suggest that research on vaccine hesitancy continues working to identify the styles of reasoning parents engage in when determining whether or not to vaccinate their children. This research could inform the development and implementation of tailored vaccination campaigns. [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]

Background: China has reduced incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases through its Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). Vaccines outside of the EPI are not provided for free by the government, however. This study explored how the stated importance of different disease and vaccine-related attributes interacted with beliefs about the immune system of a child to affect Chinese parents' decision to obtain a non-EPI vaccine.Methods: Mothers and fathers of young children at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, were interviewed about vaccine decision-making and what attributes of a disease were important when making this decision. An inductive thematic analysis explored their beliefs about disease attributes and how these related to vaccination decisions.Results: Among the 34 interviews, severity of the disease-particularly in causing long-term disability-was the most commonly cited factor influencing a parent's decision to get a vaccine for their child. Many parents believed that natural infection was preferable to vaccination, as long as disease was not severe, and many were concerned that imported vaccines were inadequate for Chinese children's physical constitutions. All these beliefs could influence the decision to vaccinate.Conclusions: Many parents do not appear to understand how and why vaccines can support development of a healthy immune system. Because severity emerged as parents' overriding concern when making decisions about vaccines, marketing for a childhood vaccine could focus on the severe condition that a vaccine can protect against. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]