More Like this

1. Sensitivity to COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety in Shanghai, China

   https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050472  

   Lu, Jia; Wen, Xiaosa; Guo, Qi; Ji, Mengdi; Zhang, Felicia; Wagner, Abram L.; Lu, Yihan (May 2021, Vaccines)

   null (Ed.)

   Several COVID-19 vaccines have been on the market since early 2021 and may vary in their effectiveness and safety. This study characterizes hesitancy about accepting COVID-19 vaccines among parents in Shanghai, China, and identifies how sensitive they are to changes in vaccine safety and effectiveness profiles. Schools in each township of Minhang District, Shanghai, were sampled, and parents in the WeChat group of each school were asked to participate in this cross-sectional Internet-based survey. Parents responded to questions about hesitancy and were given information about five different COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the effectiveness of which varied between 50 and 95% and which had a risk of fever as a side effect between 5 and 20%. Overall, 3673 parents responded to the survey. Almost 90% would accept a vaccine for themselves (89.7%), for their child (87.5%) or for an elderly parent (88.5%) with the most ideal attributes (95% effectiveness with 5% risk of fever). But with the least ideal attributes (50% effectiveness and a 20% risk of fever) these numbers dropped to 33.5%, 31.3%, and 31.8%, respectively. Vaccine hesitancy, age at first child’s birth, and relative income were all significantly related to sensitivity to vaccine safety and effectiveness. Parents showed a substantial shift in attitudes towards a vaccine based on its safety and effectiveness profile. These findings indicate that COVID-19 vaccine acceptance may be heavily influenced by how effective the vaccine actually is and could be impeded or enhanced based on vaccines already on the market. 

   more » « less
2. Modification of a vaccine hesitancy scale for use in adult vaccinations in the United States and China

   https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.1884476  

   Akel, Kaitlyn B.; Masters, Nina B.; Shih, Shu-Fang; Lu, Yihan; Wagner, Abram L. (January 2021, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics)

   null (Ed.)

   Most research on vaccine hesitancy has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination, but it will be important to understand dimensions of vaccine hesitancy in the adult population as more adult vaccines are introduced in the future. We modified the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to target adult vaccines and provide measures of its reliability and validity relative to influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in cross-sectional internet surveys in the United States and in China. We assessed the impact of vaccine hesitancy on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination using multivariable regression modeling, which informed concurrent validity of the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS). Among 1103 participants in the March 2020 China survey, 5.4% would not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas this figure was 18.8% for the March 2020 US survey and 27.3% for the June 2020 US survey. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency in all three surveys. Models adjusted for age, gender and income level show that prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those who scored higher on the VHS than those who scored lower on all three surveys. Prevalence of past and future flu vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those with higher aVHS scores than those with lower scores. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is lower in those with higher vaccine hesitancy scores, which supports the scale’s concurrent validity. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency, making it a valid and reliable tool for measuring vaccination uptake. 

   more » « less
3. Latinx youth’s and parents’ covid-19 beliefs, vaccine hesitancy and vaccination rates: Longitudinal associations in a community sample

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307479  

   Mantina, Namoonga; M; Ngaybe, Maiya G_Block; Zeiders, Katharine H; Osman, Kayla M; Wilkinson-Lee, Ada M; Landor, Antoinette M; Hoyt, Lindsay T (July 2024, PLOS ONE)

   Stimpson, Jim P (Ed.)

   Introduction The Latinx population has the second highest COVID-19 death rate among racial/ethnic groups in the United States and less than half of Latinx youth aged 5–17 years old completed their COVID-19 primary vaccination series as of September 2022. COVID-19 vaccine misinformation detrimentally impacts vaccination rates. In this study, we examined factors that predicted Latinx youth COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination status. Methods A community-based sample of 290 Latinx parent and adolescent dyads from a Southwestern metropolitan area of the United States who were recruited to complete an online survey at baseline at T1 (August 2020 –March 2021) and one year later. We tested a longitudinal mediation model in which we examined individual and family factors that would predict youth COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination status over time. Results Youth’s pandemic disbelief (i.e., the belief that the COVID-19 pandemic is a conspiracy or not real) predicted greater youth’s COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and in turn, a lower likelihood of youth’s COVID-19 vaccination. Youth’s pandemic disbelief also predicted greater parent’s vaccination hesitancy which, in turn, predicted greater youth’s vaccination hesitancy and a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. Parents’ pandemic disbelief predicted their own COVID-19 hesitancy, but not youth hesitancy Discussion Our study findings provide initial evidence that general pandemic disbelief was a significant driver of vaccine hesitancy and vaccination among Latinx families. The study contributes to the limited research investigating COVID-19 vaccination in the Latinx community and among Latinx youth, further aiding how COVID-19 vaccine disparities can be mitigated among racial/ethnic populations. 

   more » « less
4. Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.558270  

   Shih, Shu-Fang; Wagner, Abram L.; Masters, Nina B.; Prosser, Lisa A.; Lu, Yihan; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. (June 2021, Frontiers in Immunology)

   null (Ed.)

   The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic’s early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults. 

   more » « less
5. Effect of COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategies on vaccination refusal: a national survey

   https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1936613  

   Bruine de Bruin, Wändi; Ulqinaku, Aulona; Goldman, Dana P. (January 2021, Journal of Risk Research)

   Wardman, Jamie (Ed.)

   Currently, one of the most pressing public health challenges is encouraging people to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Due to limited supplies, some people have had to wait for the COVID-19 vaccine. Consumer research has suggested that people who are overlooked in initial distribution of desired goods may no longer be interested. Here, we therefore examined people’s preferences for proposed vaccine allocation strategies, as well as their anticipated responses to being overlooked. After health-care workers, most participants preferred prioritizing vaccines for high-risk individuals living in group-settings (49%) or with families (29%). We also found evidence of reluctance if passed over. After random assignment to vaccine allocation strategies that would initially overlook them, 37% of participants indicated that they would refuse the vaccine. The refusal rate rose to 42% when the vaccine allocation strategy prioritized people in areas with more COVID-19 – policies that were implemented in many areas. Even among participants who did not self-identify as vaccine hesitant, 22% said they would not want the vaccine in that case. Logistic regressions confirmed that vaccine refusal would be largest if vaccine allocation strategies targeted people who live in areas with more COVID-19 infections. In sum, once people are overlooked by vaccine allocation, they may no longer want to get vaccinated, even if they were not originally vaccine hesitant. Vaccine allocation strategies that prioritize high-infection areas and high-risk individuals in group-settings may enhance these concerns. 

   more » « less