An official website of the United States government
Despite their clearly demonstrated safety and effectiveness, approved vaccines against COVID-19 are commonly mistrusted. Nations should find and implement effective ways to boost vaccine confidence. But the implications for ethical vaccine development are less straightforward than some have assumed. Opponents of COVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, in particular, made speculative or empirically implausible warnings on this matter, some of which, if applied consistently, would have ruled out most COVID-19 vaccine trials and many non-pharmaceutical responses.
more »
« less
Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials
In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2039320
- PAR ID:
- 10391843
- Editor(s):
- Roma, Paolo
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0275823
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Abstract To design effective vaccine policies, policymakers need detailed data about who has been vaccinated, who is holding out, and why. However, existing data in the US are insufficient: reported vaccination rates are often delayed or not granular enough, and surveys of vaccine hesitancy are limited by high-level questions and self-report biases. Here we show how search engine logs and machine learning can help to fill these gaps, using anonymized Bing data from February to August 2021. First, we develop avaccine intent classifierthat accurately detects when a user is seeking the COVID-19 vaccine on Bing. Our classifier demonstrates strong agreement with CDC vaccination rates, while preceding CDC reporting by 1–2 weeks, and estimates more granular ZIP-level rates, revealing local heterogeneity in vaccine seeking. To study vaccine hesitancy, we use our classifier to identify two groups,vaccine early adoptersandvaccine holdouts. We find that holdouts, compared to early adopters matched on covariates, are 67% likelier to click on untrusted news sites, and are much more concerned about vaccine requirements, development, and vaccine myths. Even within holdouts, clusters emerge with different concerns and openness to the vaccine. Finally, we explore the temporal dynamics of vaccine concerns and vaccine seeking, and find that key indicators predict when individuals convert from holding out to seeking the vaccine.more » « less
-
Background: The health belief model suggests that individuals' beliefs affect behaviors associated with health. This study examined whether Ohioans' pre-existing medical health diagnoses affected their belief about personal health risk and their compliance with social distancing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior research examining physical and mental diagnoses and social distancing compliance is nearly nonexistent. We examined whether physical and mental health diagnoses influenced individuals' beliefs that their health is at risk and their adherence with social distancing guidelines. Methods: The study used longitudinal cohort data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) (n = 790), which surveyed Ohioans prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dependent variables included belief that an individual's own health was at risk and social distancing compliance. Independent variables included physical and mental health diagnoses, pandemic-related factors (fear of COVID-19, political beliefs about the pandemic, friends social distance, family social distance, COVID-19 exposure), and sociodemographic variables (age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational level). Results: Individuals who had a pre-existing physical health diagnosis were more likely to believe that their personal health was at risk during the pandemic but were not more likely to comply with social distancing guidelines. In contrast, individuals who had a pre-existing mental health diagnosis were more compliant with social distancing guidelines but were not more likely to believe their personal health was at risk. Individuals who expressed greater fear of COVID-19 believed their health is more at risk than those who expressed lower levels of fear. Conclusion: Health considerations are important to account for in assessments of responses to the pandemic, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing behavior. Additional research is needed to understand the divergence in the findings regarding physical health, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing compliance. Further, research is needed to understand how mental health issues impact decision-making related to social distancing compliance.more » « less
-
This study explores COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among prison security staff and the extent to which they trust varied sources of information about the vaccines. Cross-sectional survey data were obtained from a state-wide sample of corrections officers (COs, hereafter; n = 1208) in February 2021. Group differences, disaggregated by demographic characteristics, were examined using F-tests and t-tests. Despite the comparatively limited risk of contracting the virus, non-security staff reported they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine at no cost (74%), compared to their more vulnerable CO counterparts (49%). We observed vaccine refusal correlations between COs’ reported gender, age, and length of time working as a CO, but none with their self-reported race. Vaccine refusal was more prevalent among womxn officers, younger officers, and those who had spent less time working as prison security staff. Our findings also suggest that the only trusted source of information about vaccines were family members and only for officers who would refuse the vaccine; the quality of trust placed in those sources, however, was not substantially positive and did not vary greatly across CO racial groups. By highlighting characteristics of the observed gaps in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between COs and their non-security staff coworkers, as well as between corrections officers of varied demographic backgrounds, these findings can inform the development of responsive and accepted occupational health policies for communities both inside and intrinsically linked to prisons.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275823
