Vaccine Hesitancy

Author(s):  
Eve Dubé ◽  
Noni E. MacDonald

Vaccination is one of the greatest public health successes. With sanitation and clean water, vaccines are estimated to have saved more lives over the past 100 years than any other health intervention. Vaccination not only protects the individual, but also, in many instances, provides community protection against vaccine-preventable diseases through herd immunity. To reduce the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination programs rely upon reaching and sustaining high coverage rates, but paradoxically, because of the success of vaccination, new generations are often unaware of the risks of these serious diseases and their concerns now concentrate on the perceived risk of individual vaccines. Over the past decades, several vaccine controversies have occurred worldwide, generating concerns about vaccine adverse effects and eroding trust in health authorities, experts, and science. Gaps in vaccination coverage can, in part, be attributed to vaccine hesitancy and not just to “supply side issues” such as access to vaccination services and affordability. The concept of vaccine hesitancy is now commonly used in the discourse around vaccine acceptance. The World Health Organization defines vaccine hesitancy as “lack of acceptance of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines.” A vaccine-hesitant person can delay, be reluctant but still accept, or refuse one, some, or all vaccines. Technical, psychological, sociocultural, political, and economic factors can contribute to vaccine hesitancy. At the individual level, recent reviews have focused on factors associated with vaccination acceptance or refusal, identifying determinants such as fear of side effects, perceptions around health and prevention of disease and a preference for “natural” health, low perception of the efficacy and usefulness of vaccines, negative past experiences with vaccination services, and lack of awareness or knowledge about vaccination. Very few interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing vaccine hesitancy. Most of the studies have only focused on metrics of vaccine uptake and refusal to evaluate interventions aimed at enhancing vaccine acceptance, which makes it difficult to assess their potential effectiveness to address vaccine hesitancy. In addition, despite the complex nature of vaccination decision-making, the majority of public health interventions to promote vaccination are designed with the assumption that vaccine hesitancy is due to lack or inadequate knowledge about vaccines (the “knowledge-deficit” or “knowledge gap” approach). A key predictor of acceptance of a vaccine by a vaccine-hesitant person remains the recommendation for vaccination by a trusted healthcare provider. When providers communicate effectively about the value and need for vaccinations and vaccine safety, people are more confident in their decisions. However, to do this well, healthcare providers must be confident themselves about the safety, effectiveness, and importance of vaccination, and recent research has shown that a proportion of healthcare providers are vaccine-hesitant in their professional and personal lives. Effective strategies to address vaccine hesitancy among these hesitant providers have yet to be identified. A better understanding of the dynamics of the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy is critical for effective tailored interventions to be designed for both the public and healthcare providers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olufunto A. Olusanya ◽  
Robert A. Bednarczyk ◽  
Robert L. Davis ◽  
Arash Shaban-Nejad

Routine childhood immunizations are proven to be one of the most effective public health interventions at controlling numerous deadly diseases. Therefore, the CDC recommends routine immunizations for children and adolescent populations against vaccine-preventable diseases e.g., tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, etc. This current review sought to examine barriers to pediatric vaccine uptake behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored the implications for parental vaccine hesitancy/delay during an ongoing health crisis and proposed recommendations for increasing vaccine confidence and compliance. Our review determined that the receipt for vaccinations steadily improved in the last decade for both the United States and Tennessee. However, this incremental progress has been forestalled by the COVID-19 pandemic and other barriers i.e. parental vaccine hesitancy, social determinants of health (SDoH) inequalities, etc. which further exacerbate vaccination disparities. Moreover, non-compliance to routine vaccinations could cause an outbreak of diseases, thereby, worsening the ongoing health crisis and already strained health care system. Healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to offer effective recommendations with presumptive languaging to increase vaccination rates, as well as, address parental vaccine hesitancy. Best practices that incorporate healthcare providers’ quality improvement coaching, vaccination reminder recall systems, adherence to standardized safety protocols (physical distancing, hand hygiene practices, etc.), as well as, offer telehealth and outdoor/drive-through/curbside vaccination services, etc. are warranted. Additionally, a concerted effort should be made to utilize public health surveillance systems to collect, analyze, and interpret data, thereby, ensuring the dissemination of timely, accurate health information for effective health policy decision-making e.g., vaccine distribution, etc.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. Rozek ◽  
Pauline Jones ◽  
Anil Menon ◽  
Allen Hicken ◽  
Samantha Apsley ◽  
...  

Objectives: An effective vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 cannot be successfully deployed if a significant number of people worldwide are unwilling to accept it. We investigated the relationship between trust in scientists and medical professionals and perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. We also build on past studies by exploring the relationship between confidence in global health organizations and vaccine hesitancy.Methods: We conducted an online survey in seventeen countries/territories across five world regions between May -June 2020. We assessed the relationship between COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, confidence in public health organizations, and trust in key experts and leaders.Results: Our findings strongly suggest that confidence in the World Health Organization combined with trust in domestic scientists and healthcare professionals is a strong driver of vaccine acceptance across multiple countries/territories.Conclusion: We find that hesitancy is widespread, and uptake would be insufficient to achieve herd immunity. There is widespread confidence in how public health organizations have responded to the current pandemic and this is related to vaccine acceptance. Our results also highlight the important role of trust in health care providers and scientists in reducing COVID19 vaccine hesitancy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract As vaccine hesitancy and decreasing immunization coverage have been identified by the World Health Organization as global alarming health threats, it is of crucial importance to exploit the potential offered by digital solutions to enhance immunization programmes and ultimately increase vaccine uptake. We have previously developed and published a conceptual framework outlining how digitalization can support immunization at different levels: i) when adopted for health education and communication purposes, ii) in the context of immunization programmes delivery, and iii) in the context of immunization information systems management. The proposed workshop is co-organized by the EUPHA Digital health section (EUPHA-DH) and EUPHA Infectious diseases control section (EUPHA-IDC) and aims at discussing the current AVAILABILITY, USE and IMPACT of digital solutions to support immunization programmes at the international, national and local level, as well as, debating on how technical infrastructures on one side and normative and policy frameworks on the other side enable their implementation. We plan to have a rich set of contributions covering the following: the presentation of a conceptual framework identifying and mapping the digital solutions' features having the potential to bolster immunization programmes, namely: i) Personalization and precision; ii) Automation; iii) Prediction; iv) Data analytics (including big data and interoperability); and v) Interaction; the dissemination of key results and final outputs of a Europe-wide funded project on the use of Information & Communication Technology to enhance immunization, with particular reference to the use and comparative impact of email remainders and personal electronic health records, as well as the results of an international survey conducted to map and collect best practices on the use of different digital solutions within immunization programmes at the national and regional level; the firsthand experience of the United Kingdom NHS Digital Child Health Programme which developed, implemented and is currently evaluating a number of solutions to increase childhood vaccination uptake in England, including an information standard and information sharing services developed to ensure that the details of children's vaccinations can be shared between different health care settings the perspective and experience of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) for Europe and of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the global level of what has worked so far in the digitalization of immunization programmes around the world, what recommendations were developed and which barriers identified at the technical normative and policy level Key messages Digitalization has great potential to support immunization programmes but its practice and impact need to be measured. Country-level and international experiences have created qualitative and quantitative evidence on the effectiveness of digital intervention aimed at increasing vaccine uptake.


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 798
Author(s):  
Sami H. Alzahrani ◽  
Mukhtiar Baig ◽  
Mohammed W. Alrabia ◽  
Mohammed R. Algethami ◽  
Meshari M. Alhamdan ◽  
...  

Vaccine uptake could influence vaccination efforts to control the widespread COVID-19 pandemic; however, little is known about vaccine acceptance in Saudi Arabia. The present study aimed to assess the Saudi public’s intent to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and explore the associated demographic determinants of their intentions as well as the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. A cross-sectional, web-based survey was distributed to public individuals in Saudi Arabia between 25 December 2020 and 15 February 2021. Participants were asked if they were willing to get vaccinated, and the responses, along with demographic data were entered into a multinomial logistic regression model to assess the relative risk ratio (RRR) for responding “no” or “unsure” versus “yes”. Among 3048 participants (60.1% female, 89.5% Saudi), 52.9% intend to get vaccinated, 26.8% were unsure, and 20.3% refused vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy was significantly higher among females (RRR = 2.70, p < 0.0001) and those who had not been recently vaccinated for influenza (RRR = 2.63, p < 0.0001). The likelihood was lower among Saudis (RRR = 0.49, p < 0.0001), those with less than a secondary education (RRR = 0.16, p < 0.0001), perceived risks of COVID-19, and residents of the southern region (RRR = 0.46, p < 0.0001). The most often cited reasons for hesitancy were short clinical testing periods and concerns about adverse events or effectiveness. Vaccine hesitancy is mediated by many demographic factors and personal beliefs. To address vaccine-related concerns and amend deeply rooted health beliefs, communication should provide transparent information.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e048586
Author(s):  
Mohamad-Hani Temsah ◽  
Mazin Barry ◽  
Fadi Aljamaan ◽  
Abdullah Alhuzaimi ◽  
Ayman Al-Eyadhy ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.DesignNational cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.SettingOnline, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.ParticipantsA total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.InterventionData were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1–15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.ResultsAmong the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine’s efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine’s manufacturing country (28.6%).ConclusionsAwareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
pp. 80-91
Author(s):  
Tauheed Zahra ◽  
◽  
Farhan Ahmad Faiz ◽  
Farrah Ahmed ◽  
◽  
...  

The World Health Organization recognizes vaccine related myths and conspiracies as the world's top threat to public health safety, particularly in low middle-income countries. The current study aims to explore the beliefs of the general public towards the vaccine acceptance and the hesitancy. The study explicates the COVID 19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy determinants through an in-depth qualitative approach. A total of 30 male and female millennials from different education backgrounds were interviewed through an interview guide. This study reveals that people have different beliefs related to the vaccine authenticity which plays a vital role in the reluctance towards it. Findings from paper is similar to literature that people from good educational background have similar thoughts towards COVID 19 vaccination. Disregard for the vaccine was caused by various factors, such as misinformation, safety concerns, and personal knowledge. This level of distrust was associated with the social worlds that participants experienced during the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a complex relationship that involves the spread of misinformation. Vaccine programs should provide a focused, localized, and empathetic response to counter misinformation. Keywords: COVID-19, vaccines, myths, hesitancy, vaccines awareness, pandemic, conspiracy, corona virus


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayleigh Beaveridge

Introduction: The anti-vaccination movement has led to decreased vaccination rates and increased vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases in the general population. In order to better understand the anti-vaccination movement of today, the anti-vaccination movement that emerged in the 19th century is examined and measured against the one observed in the 20th century. Discussion: Though the population of the 19th and 20th centuries differ in many regards and our knowledge of vaccine and immune mechanisms are far greater; the anti-vaccination movement seen today stands on the same pillars as that of the 1800s with the sentiment of fear at its core. Though the façade of these pillars has been altered to suit the world today, both movements exploited the influence of prominent public figures, maintained false associations with dire vaccine consequences and emphasized these through the use of visual media, repetition and personal narratives. The persistence of the anti-vaccination movement lies largely in the use of personal stories which are more impactful and memorable then the statistical characteristics of scientific study. Conclusion: The pro-vaccination movement must respond to the tactics used by the anti-vaccination movement and create accessible, understandable and equally impactful communication strategies in order to prevent the spread of misinformation and counter the efforts of the current anti-vaccination movement. Relevance: Vaccine hesitancy was listed amongst the top 10 global health threats in 2019 by the World Health Organization. In order to shift the negative rhetoric surrounding vaccines, the anti-vaccination movement of today and its historic roots need to be understood.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gbadebo Collins Adeyanju ◽  
Elena Engel ◽  
Laura Koch ◽  
Tabea Ranzinger ◽  
Imtiaz Bin Mohammed Shahid ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries remains low, despite the presence of widespread national recommendations. An influenza vaccination reduces influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, as well as providing newborns with protection in their first months. Potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy need to be identified to develop strategies that can increase vaccine acceptance and uptake among pregnant women. The primary objective of the systematic review is to identify the individual determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe, and how to overcome the hesitancy. Methods Databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2009 and 2019 inclusive. Databases included PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis and Springer nature. These covered themes including psychology, medicine, and public health. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 11 studies were eligible and analyzed for significant determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe. Results The most commonly reported factors were psychological aspects, for example concerns about safety and risks to mother and child, or general low risk perception of becoming ill from influenza. Doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of knowledge about this topic were further factors. There was also influence of contextual factors, such as healthcare workers not providing adequate knowledge about the influenza vaccine or the pregnant lady stating their antivaccine sentiment. Conclusion Health promotion that specifically increases knowledge among pregnant women about influenza and vaccination is important, supporting a valid risk judgment by the pregnant lady. The development of new information strategies for dialogue between healthcare providers and pregnant women should form part of this strategy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S677-S677
Author(s):  
Marisa Orbea ◽  
Rachel Cunningham ◽  
C Mary Healy ◽  
Julie A Boom ◽  
Claire Bocchini

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy (VH) is hindering nationwide vaccination efforts; little is known about caregiver SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance for children. We aimed to identify associations with SARS-CoV-2 VH in caregivers of hospitalized children. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey in English and Spanish of caregiver COVID-19 knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and associated VH among hospitalized children 6 months - 18 years at a large pediatric medical institution. Parents were approached daily, averaging 4-5 days/week, from 12/8/2020--4/5/2021. VH was assessed using the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey; PACV score ≥50 denoted VH. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were used. Responses were categorized. Results 295/307 (96%) of approached caregivers enrolled; 79% were ≥ 30 years, 68% were married/ living with a partner, and 57% had at least some college. 36% identified as white, 19% Black, and 46% Hispanic/ Latino. 53% of caregiver children had public insurance. 91% of caregivers self-reported their children were up to date with routine vaccines. 17% of caregivers were vaccine-hesitant overall. 50% of caregivers were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccine themselves. Figure 1 shows intention to vaccinate their child by PACV score. 65% knew someone who was hospitalized for COVID-19. 67% were scared of their child getting COVID-19. However, 49% were scared of their child getting the vaccine, 28% did not want to vaccinate their child and 27% were neutral in the intention to vaccinate their child. Caregivers who did not intend to vaccinate their child were more likely to be Black (27% vs. 16%, p=0.04) and less likely to be Hispanic/ Latino (33% vs. 49%, p=0.02). Table 1 shows attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine in caregivers who did or did not intend to vaccinate their child. Figure 1 COVID-19 vaccine uptake by PACV score Table 1 Caregiver attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 vaccine Conclusion The majority of caregivers believe that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will help control the pandemic, but less than half plan to vaccinate their children. A quarter of caregivers expressed uncertainty regarding the vaccine and therefore may be amenable to education and discussion. COVID-19 VH is different from VH towards routine vaccinations. More research is needed to address COVID-19 specific VH. Disclosures C. Mary Healy, MD, Dexcom (Shareholder)Intuitive (Shareholder)Quidel Corporation (Shareholder)Up to Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium)Vapotherm (Shareholder)


Author(s):  
Laura A. Meek

This research article critically interrogates the implications and unintended consequences of the World Health Organization’s purported elimination of leprosy as a public health problem. I explore how leprosy has been portrayed (for nearly a century) as something from the past, recalcitrantly lingering on into the present, but surely about to be gone—a temporal framing I call the ‘grammar of leprosy’. I recount the experiences of Daniel, my interlocutor in Tanzania, whose existence became a problem for his doctors. This problem they ultimately resolved by fabricating negative test results in order to record what they already knew: leprosy had been eliminated. I also analyse how researchers working for Novartis (the supplier of leprosy’s cure) continue to push for an always imminent ‘elimination’, while field researchers repeatedly caution about the potential problems of this approach. Finally, I reveal how the grammar of leprosy operates through a complex set of temporal politics, pulling into its orbit and being enabled by multiple interwoven temporalities. I conclude that—due to this grammar, the impossible subjects it produces, and the temporal politics through which it operates—leprosy elimination campaigns may have dire consequences for the lives of people with leprosy today, impeding rather than enabling treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document