Despite their disparate rates of infection and mortality, many communities of color report high levels of vaccine hesitancy. This paper describes racial differences in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Detroit, and assesses, using a mediation model, how individuals’ personal experiences with COVID-19 and trust in authorities mediate racial disparities in vaccination acceptance. The Detroit Metro Area Communities Study (DMACS) is a panel survey of a representative sample of Detroit residents. There were 1012 respondents in the October 2020 wave, of which 856 (83%) were followed up in June 2021. We model the impact of race and ethnicity on vaccination uptake using multivariable logistic regression, and report mediation through direct experiences with COVID as well as trust in government and in healthcare providers. Within Detroit, only 58% of Non-Hispanic (NH) Black residents were vaccinated, compared to 82% of Non-Hispanic white Detroiters, 50% of Hispanic Detroiters, and 52% of other racial/ethnic groups. Trust in healthcare providers and experiences with friends and family dying from COVID-19 varied significantly by race/ethnicity. The mediation analysis reveals that 23% of the differences in vaccine uptake by race could be eliminated if NH Black Detroiters were to have levels of trust in healthcare providers similar to those among NH white Detroiters. Our analyses suggest that efforts to improve relationships among healthcare providers and NH Black communities in Detroit are critical to overcoming local COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Increased study of and intervention in these communities is critical to building trust and managing widespread health crises.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on October 1, 2024
“In the beginning, I said I wouldn't get it.”: Hesitant adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine in remote Alaska between November 2020 and 2021
Achieving sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage has been hindered in many areas by vaccine hesitancy. Many studies based on large survey samples have characterized vaccine refusal, but there are fewer in-depth qualitative studies that explore hesitant adoption: the middle-ground between vaccine acceptance and refusal, and how individuals may move across this continuum depending on their lived experience. For this paper, we use the narratives of 25 adults living in off-road, predominately Alaska Native communities to describe the complex decision-making processes undertaken by ‘hesitant adopters’, defined in our study as those who completed their initial COVID-19 series despite reporting hesitancy. Interviewees' stories help illustrate how hesitant adopters' decision-making processes involved making sense of information through interactions with trusted individuals, lived experiences, observations, emotions, and personal motivations. For the majority of these hesitant adopters' (n = 20, 80%) interpersonal interactions were key in helping to make the decision to get vaccinated. Over half of the interviewees (n = 14, 56%) described how conversations with individuals they trusted, including healthcare providers, family, friends, and interactions through their professional network made them feel safe. One third of the hesitant adopters (n = 7, 28%) attributed their decision to get vaccinated based on the influence of Alaska Native Elders including their knowledge, personal experiences, as well as being motivated by the desire to protect them. Independent research was also important to about a quarter of hesitant adopters (n = 6, 24%), and for these interviewees it was the process of gathering information on their own and learning from others, especially healthcare providers who could answer their questions and alleviate their concerns. This paper illustrates the temporality of vaccine decision-making: vaccine acceptance for those who are hesitant may be an ongoing process that is influenced by personal experience, relationships, and context.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2202820
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10475034
- Publisher / Repository:
- Science Direct
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Social Science & Medicine
- Volume:
- 334
- Issue:
- C
- ISSN:
- 0277-9536
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 116197
- 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
-
more » « less
Abstract STUDY QUESTION To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence?
SUMMARY ANSWER COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020–November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Eligible female participants were aged 21–45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks’ gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks’ gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8–19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
-
more » « less
Abstract Background COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, but little research has determined whether those with chronic diseases view the pandemic itself differently - and whether there are differences between chronic diseases. We theorized that while individuals with respiratory disease or autoimmune disorders would perceive greater threat from COVID-19 and be more supportive of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), those with autoimmune disorders would be less likely to support vaccination-based interventions.
Methods We conducted a two-wave online survey conducted in February and November 2021 asking respondents their beliefs about COVID-19 risk perception, adoption and support of interventions, willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and reasons for vaccination. Regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of respondents reporting a chronic disease and COVID-19 behaviors and attitudes, compared to healthy respondents adjusting for demographic and political factors.
Results In the initial survey, individuals reporting a chronic disease had both stronger feelings of risk from COVID-19 as well as preferences for NPIs than healthy controls. The only NPI that was still practiced significantly more compared to healthy controls in the resample was limiting trips outside of the home. Support for community-level NPIs was higher among individuals reporting a chronic disease than healthy controls and remained high among those with respiratory diseases in sample 2. Vaccine acceptance produced more divergent results: those reporting chronic respiratory diseases were 6% more willing to be vaccinated than healthy controls, while we found no significant difference between individuals with autoimmune diseases and healthy controls. Respondents with chronic respiratory disease and those with autoimmune diseases were more likely to want to be vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19, and those with an autoimmune disease were more likely to report fear of a bad vaccine reaction as the reason for vaccine hesitancy. In the resample, neither those with respiratory diseases nor autoimmune diseases reported being more willing to receive a booster vaccine than healthy controls.
Conclusions It is not enough to recognize the importance of health in determining attitudes: nuanced differences between conditions must also be recognized.
-
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
