skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Vaccine decision making among people who inject drugs: Improving on the WHO's 3C model of vaccine hesitancy
The objectives of this study were to 1) identify vaccination rates among PWID in Oregon at a time when vaccines were easily accessible, 2) quantitatively identify convergence with demographic correlates of vaccination willingness and uptake to promote generalizability, and 3) explore the factors PWID were considering when deciding whether or not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted a mixed-methods study design including 260 quantitative surveys and 41 in-depth qualitative interviews with PWID, conducted July - September 2021 at syringe services programs in Lane County, Oregon. Among the 260 survey respondents, 37.3% indicated that they had received a COVID-19 vaccine by October 1, 2021. In the same period, an estimated 70.1% of the total Lane County population had completed their COVID-19 vaccinations (not including booster rounds). We explored alignment with the WHO’s 3C model of vaccine hesitancy and identified, instead, five common factors as key motivators for vaccine decisions: confidence, convenience, concern, communication, and community implications among PWID. Interviews with PWID describe systemic barriers which prevented them from accessing healthcare resources. We highlight that our proposed 5C model may more accurately depict how PWID navigate vaccine decisions by incorporating the ways that social inequities, infrastructural barriers, and community values influence an individual’s vaccine deliberation.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1844715
PAR ID:
10539731
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Preventive Medicine Reports
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Preventive Medicine Reports
Volume:
35
Issue:
C
ISSN:
2211-3355
Page Range / eLocation ID:
102341
Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
COVID-19 People Who Inject Drugs Vaccination Vaccine deliberation Substance use Health behaviors Mixed-methods
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, 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
  2. ; (, Vaccine)
    Substantial research indicates that local explanatory models of disease shape heath behaviors. However, less is known regarding how cultural models of disease influence interpretations of vaccines. Vaccination decisions are based around a plethora of social and cultural factors, including beliefs about disease, cultural-historical experiences with healthcare, and recent vaccination experiences. To understand how local interpretations of vaccination influence vaccination-decision making, we explore cultural models of health, vaccine norms, and COVID-19 beliefs and experiences in Himba and Herero pastoralists of the Kunene region of northern Namibia. Mixed sex focus groups were conducted in July and August of 2024 in communities across a rural and peri-urban gradient. Discussion prompts were designed to elicit dialogue on vaccination beliefs, norms, and experiences, as well as their recent experience with COVID-19. Results from these focus groups indicate that there was substantial confusion differentiating vaccinations from other types of injections. For childhood vaccines, immunization is normative and expected. Women were the primary decision-makers for childhood immunization, reflecting the matrilineal bias of Himba and Herero kinship. For adults, while local leaders had some influence interfacing with public health outreach, the decision to get vaccinated was largely a personal one. Beliefs about COVID-19 were interpreted through pre-existing cultural models of illness, and beliefs about the origins of COVID-19 reflected mistrust in international actors. Fears about COVID-19 vaccines were common, particularly concerns about vaccine safety. However, fears of the illness typically overrode fears of the vaccine, and most report receiving the vaccine despite these worries. These results highlight the importance of extending research beyond a knowledge, attitude, practice framework to incorporate local explanatory models and cultural-historical experiences in understanding vaccine-decision making. These features are particularly important in more traditional, rural, and marginalized populations where medical mistrust is common and local explanatory models of disease drive healthcare decision-making. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Rosenbaum, Janet E (Ed.)
    Vaccine hesitancy remains an issue in the United States. This study conducted an online survey [N = 3,013] using the Social Science Research Solution [SSRS] Opinion Panel web panelists, representative of U.S. adults age 18 and older who use the internet, with an oversample of rural-dwelling and minority populations between April 8 and April 22, 2021- as vaccine eligibility opened to the country. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 exposure and socio-demographics with vaccine intentions [eager-to-take, wait-and-see, undecided, refuse] among the unvaccinated using multinomial logistic regressions [ref: fully/partially vaccinated]. Results showed vaccine intentions varied by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience during the period that eligibility for the vaccine was extended to all adults. At the time of the survey approximately 40% of respondents were unvaccinated; 41% knew someone who had died of COVID-19, and 38% had experienced financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. The vaccinated were more likely to be highly educated, older adults, consistent with the United States initial eligibility criteria. Political affiliation and financial hardship experienced during the pandemic were the two most salient factors associated with being undecided or unwilling to take the vaccine. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; (, 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. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology)
    Background: Nursing home (NH) residents and staff were at high risk for COVID-19 early in the pandemic; several studies estimated seroprevalence of infection in NH staff to be 3-fold higher among CNAs and nurses compared to other staff. Risk mitigation added in Fall 2020 included systematic testing of residents and staff (and furlough if positive) to reduce transmission risk. We estimated risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection among NH staff during the first winter surge before widespread vaccination. Methods: Between February and May 2021, voluntary serologic testing was performed on NH staff who were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 in late Fall 2020 (during a previous serology study at 14 Georgia NHs). An exposure assessment at the second time point covered prior 3 months of job activities, community exposures, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination, including very recent vaccination (≤4 weeks). Risk factors for seroconversion were estimated by job type using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for interval community-incidence and interval change in resident infections per bed. Results: Among 203 eligible staff, 72 (35.5%) had evidence of interval seroconversion (Fig. 1). Among 80 unvaccinated staff, interval infection was significantly higher among CNAs and nurses (aOR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4–20.7) than other staff, after adjusting for race and interval community incidence and facility infections. This risk persisted but was attenuated when utilizing the full study cohort including those with very recent vaccination (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9–3.7). Conclusions : Midway through the first year of the pandemic, NH staff with close or common resident contact continued to be at increased risk for infection despite enhanced infection prevention efforts. Mitigation strategies, prior to vaccination, did not eliminate occupational risk for infection. Vaccine utilization is critical to eliminate occupational risk among frontline healthcare providers. Funding: None Disclosures: None 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email