Search for: All records

This study assessed changes in behaviors/attitudes related to the COVID-19. With the understanding that behaviors and vaccine decision-making could contribute to global spread of infectious diseases, this study collected several waves of internet-based surveys from individuals in the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. The aims of this study were to (1) characterize the relationship between the epidemiology of disease and changes over time in risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards hygienic behaviors; (2) examine if risk perceptions affect acceptance of less-than-ideal vaccines; and (3) contrast adherence to public health recommendations across countries which have had different governmental responses to the outbreak.

We conducted cross-sectional online surveys in six countries from March 2020 to April 2021. By the end of June 2021, there will be six waves of surveys for the United States and China, and four waves for the rest of countries. There are common sets of questions for all countries, however, some questions were adapted to reflect local situations and some questions were designed intentionally for specific countries to capture different COVID-19 mitigation actions. Participants were asked about their adherence towards countermeasures, risk perceptions, and acceptance of a hypothetical vaccine for COVID-19.

 

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. 

Controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 will require high vaccination coverage, but acceptance of the vaccine could be impacted by perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to characterize how vaccine safety and effectiveness impact acceptance of a vaccine, and whether this impact varied over time or across socioeconomic and demographic groups. Repeated cross-sectional surveys of an opt-in internet sample were conducted in 2020 in the US, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. Individuals were randomized into receiving information about a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine with different safety and effectiveness profiles (risk of fever 5% vs. 20% and vaccine effectiveness 50% vs. 95%). We examined the effect of the vaccine profile on vaccine acceptance in a logistic regression model, and included interaction terms between vaccine profile and socioeconomic/demographic variables to examine the differences in sensitivity to the vaccine profile. In total, 12,915 participants were enrolled in the six-country study, including the US (4054), China (2797), Taiwan (1278), Malaysia (1497), Indonesia (1527), and India (1762). Across time and countries, respondents had stronger preferences for a safer and more effective vaccine. For example, in the US in November 2020, acceptance was 3.10 times higher for a 95% effective vaccine with a 5% risk of fever, vs a vaccine 50% effective, with a 20% risk of fever (95% CI: 2.07, 4.63). Across all countries, there was an increase in the effect of the vaccine profile over time (p < 0.0001), with stronger preferences for a more effective and safer vaccine in November 2020 compared to August 2020. Sensitivity to the vaccine profile was also stronger in August compared to November 2020, in younger age groups, among those with lower income; and in those that are vaccine hesitant. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines could vary in a country based upon effectiveness and availability. Effective communication tools will need to be developed for certain sensitive groups, including young adults, those with lower income, and those more vaccine hesitant. 

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. 

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. 

This study examined whether future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance differed based on an experimental manipulation of the vaccine safety and effectiveness profile. Data come from the Detroit Metro Area Community Study, a population-based study conducted July 15–20, 2020. Participants were asked whether they would get a new COVID-19 vaccine after being randomly assigned information about the vaccine’s effectiveness (50% or 95%) and chance of fever (5% or 20%). Among 1,117 Detroiters, 51.3% would accept a COVID-19 vaccine that is 50% effective and 77.1% would accept a vaccine that is 95% effective. Women and adults ≥65 were more accepting of a vaccine; Black Detroiters were less accepting. Believing vaccines to be important, effective, and safe was associated with higher acceptance. Uptake of a COVID-19 may be limited, depending on perceived vaccine effectiveness and general attitudes toward vaccines. Public health approaches to modifying these attitudes will be especially important in the Black community. 

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.