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: The ethics of COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for healthcare workers: Public health and clinical perspectives
COVID‐19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers (HCWs) remains of significant public health concern due to the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic. As a result, many healthcare institutions are considering or have implemented COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for HCWs. We assess defenses of COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for HCWs from both public health and professional ethics perspectives. We consider public health values, professional obligations of HCWs, and the institutional failures in healthcare throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic which have impacted the lived experiences of HCWs. We argue that, despite the compelling urgency of maximizing COVID‐19 vaccine uptake among HCWs, the ethical case for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for HCWs in the United States is complex, and, under current circumstances, inconclusive. Nevertheless, we recognize that COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have already been and will continue to be implemented across many healthcare institutions. Given such context, we provide suggestions for implementing COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for HCWs.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2122574
PAR ID:
10612844
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Bioethics
Volume:
37
Issue:
4
ISSN:
0269-9702
Page Range / eLocation ID:
331 to 342
Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
COVID‐19 healthcare workers policy vaccine mandates
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; (, Vaccines)
    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
  2. ; ; (, Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities)
    Objectives Substantial inequalities in access to healthcare are common in rural and marginalized populations in the Global South, and these inequalities can drive health disparities. Historical mistrust of healthcare institutions can further impact healthcare behaviors, including vaccination. Here, we apply the concept of medical mistrust, which has been widely applied to healthcare decisions in industrialized countries, across a rural–urban spectrum of communities in Namibia, and assess its utility in understanding vaccination decisions. Methods Otjiherero-speaking indigenous communities of Kunene, Namibia, were surveyed to assess medical mistrust. Participants also answered questions about COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine safety, and interest in a hypothetical malaria vaccine. Bayesian multilevel models were used to compare medical mistrust across communities and its influence on vaccination and vaccine perceptions. Results The level of medical mistrust varied across contexts, with the highest level of mistrust in peri-urban communities. Medical mistrust predicted beliefs about vaccine safety and interest in the malaria vaccine, but not COVID-19 vaccine status, which was largely driven by access to the vaccine. For rural and peri-urban Himba, participants also expressed disinterest in the COVID-19 vaccine and worries about its safety. Conclusion Addressing global health disparities requires understanding how locally contextualized social and ecological experiences shape healthcare and vaccination decisions. Results of this study show fundamental differences in medical mistrust by community, which may be contributing to beliefs about vaccines. Understanding how medical mistrust varies across these contexts, and how it impacts perceptions about vaccination, can inform health communication and public policy in underserved communities. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, 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
  4. ; ; ; ; (, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health)
    The US and the rest of the world have suffered from the COVID-19 pandemic for over a year. The high transmissibility and severity of this virus have provoked governments to adopt a variety of mitigation strategies. Some of these previous measures, such as social distancing and mask mandates, were effective in reducing the case growth rate yet became economically and administratively difficult to enforce as the pandemic continued. In late December 2020, COVID-19 vaccines were first approved in the US and states began a phased implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. However, there is limited quantitative evidence regarding the effectiveness of the phased COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to provide a rapid assessment of the adoption, reach, and effectiveness of the phased implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. We utilize an event-study analysis to evaluate the effect of vaccination on the state-level daily COVID-19 case growth rate. Through this analysis, we assert that vaccination was effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 shortly after the first shots were given. Specifically, the case growth rate declined by 0.124, 0.347, 0.345, 0.464, 0.490, and 0.756 percentage points corresponding to the 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–25, and 26 or more day periods after the initial shots. The findings could be insightful for policymakers as they work to optimize vaccine distribution in later phases, and also for the public as the COVID-19 related health risk is a contentious issue. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice)
    Public organizations, including institutions in the U.S. criminal justice (CJ) system, have been rapidly releasing information pertaining to COVID-19. Even CJ institutions typically reticent to share information, like private prisons, have released vital COVID-19 information. The boon of available pandemic-related data, however, is not without problems. Unclear conceptualizations, stakeholders’ influence on data collection and release, and a lack of experience creating public dashboards on health data are just a few of the issues plaguing CJ institutions surrounding releasing COVID-19 data. In this article, we detail issues that institutions in each arm of the CJ system face when releasing pandemic-related data. We conclude with a set of recommendations for researchers seeking to use the abundance of publicly available data on the effects of the pandemic. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email