Assessing the impact of educational methods on influenza vaccine uptake and patient knowledge and attitudes: a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Although influenza vaccination reduces rates of pneumonia, hospitalisation and mortality, influenza vaccination uptake remains low in older patients. The primary aim was to compare individualised counselling with educational pamphlets alone in improving influenza vaccination uptake. The secondary aims were to evaluate knowledge and attitudes towards influenza vaccination and factors influencing uptake. Methods: A randomised controlled study was conducted in two government polyclinics with 160 participants per arm. Patients aged 65 years and above attending for doctor consultation were recruited. All participants received an educational pamphlet on influenza vaccination. The intervention group received additional face-to-face counselling. Participants filled a pre- and postintervention questionnaire assessing knowledge of influenza and attitudes towards the vaccine. Follow-up calls and verification of electronic records was done at three months to determine actual vaccine uptake. Results: At three months, 16 (10%) patients in the intervention group and 20 (12.5%) patients in the control group had completed influenza vaccination (p = 0.48). Factors positively associated with vaccine uptake were willingness to receive vaccination immediately after intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 12.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.42–33.38), and male gender (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.23–7.12). Individualised counselling was more effective in improving knowledge (p < 0.01). Overall knowledge scores did not influence actual vaccine uptake rates. (adjusted OR 1.10 [0.90–1.3]). Conclusion: Both arms of patient education increased uptake of influenza vaccination. Individualised counselling was not superior to pamphlets alone in improving uptake. Performing vaccination at the initial point of contact improves actual uptake rates.

Predictors for Actual COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Intended Booster Dosage among Medical Students of an Osteopathic Medical School in New York

Exploring future physicians’ attitudes toward vaccination is crucial as physicians’ recommendation is the top predictor for individuals to receive vaccines. This study explored the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the intention for future booster dose uptake among students at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM). Predictors for actual vaccine and intended booster uptake were also examined. An electronic survey was distributed to Osteopathic Medical Students (OMS I-IV) in the Spring of 2021. A total of 1331 students received the survey, with 316 responses received (24%). In total, 95.3% (301/316) of the respondents reported that they already received vaccines, while 3.1% (13/316) reported that they had not yet received a vaccine. Moreover, 88.9% of the respondents (281/316) were in favor of a booster dose, which was a strong predictor for actual vaccine uptake. We identified that the Asian race, pharmaceutical mistrust, building immunity via vaccines, adequate vaccine testing, and willingness to get non-U.S. manufactured vaccines are the most significant predictors for willingness to accept a booster dose. A very high COVID-19 vaccine uptake among NYITCOM OMS was found in our study. The study also observed a high acceptance of an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in the future.

COVID-19 vaccine access and attitudes among people experiencing homelessness from pilot mobile phone survey in Los Angeles, CA

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at high risk for COVID-19 complications and fatality, and have been prioritized for vaccination in many areas. Yet little is known about vaccine acceptance in this population. The objective of this study was to determine the level of vaccine hesitancy among PEH in Los Angeles, CA and to understand the covariates of hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 risk, threat perception, self-protection and information sources. A novel mobile survey platform was deployed to recruit PEH from a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Los Angeles to participate in a monthly rapid response study of COVID-19 attitudes, behaviors, and risks. Of 90 PEH surveyed, 43 (48%) expressed some level of vaccine hesitancy based either on actual vaccine offers (17/90 = 19%) or a hypothetical offer (73/90 = 81%). In bivariate analysis, those with high COVID-19 threat perception were less likely to be vaccine hesitant (OR = 0.34, P = 0.03), while those who frequently practiced COVID-19 protective behaviors were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (OR = 2.21, P = 0.08). In a multivariate model, those with high threat perception (AOR = 0.25, P = 0.02) were less likely to be hesitant, while those engaging in COVID-19 protective behaviors were more hesitant (AOR = 3.63, P = 0.02). Those who trusted official sources were less hesitant (AOR = 0.37, P = 0.08) while those who trusted friends and family for COVID-19 information (AOR = 2.70, P = 0.07) were more likely to be hesitant. Findings suggest that targeted educational and social influence interventions are needed to address high levels of vaccine hesitancy among PEH.

The Barrier to Vaccination Is Not Vaccine Hesitancy: Patterns of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance over the Course of the Pandemic in 23 Countries

BackgroundAt present, evidence is inconclusive regarding what factors influence vaccine intent, and whether there are widespread disparities across populations and time. The current study provides new insights regarding vaccine intent and potential differences across 23 countries and over time.MethodsOur data come from a unique longitudinal survey that contains responses from Facebook users (N=1,425,172) from the 23 countries from four continents collected in 18 waves from July 2020 through March 2021.ResultsWe find that vaccine intent varies significantly across countries and over time. Across countries, there are notable disparities in intent to vaccinate. Regarding time, intent has recently reached an all-time high. Our data demonstrates that intent to vaccinate has increased as countries have deployed vaccines on larger scales with undecidedness declining. However, there are some countries where vaccine intent is stagnant and in one country – Egypt – where it seems to have declined.InterpretationsLarge numbers of citizens across the world are willing to get vaccinated. In the vast majority of countries in our sample, these were high enough to reach more conservative levels of herd immunity1 if combined with numbers of persons already infected. As such, the main barrier to vaccination is not vaccine hesitancy, but the shortage of vaccines. This sends a clear message to politicians who need to work on a quick and fair distribution of vaccine; and to scientists who need to focus their attention on understanding remaining pockets of vaccine skepticism or undecidedness and on factors that explain actual vaccine behavior, rather than intent.

COVID-19 vaccine access and attitudes among people experiencing homelessness from pilot mobile phone survey in Los Angeles, CA

BackgroundPeople experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at high risk for COVID-19 complications and fatality, and have been prioritized for vaccination in many areas. Yet little is known about vaccine acceptance in this population. The objective of this study was to determine the level of vaccine hesitancy among PEH in Los Angeles, CA and to understand the covariates of hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 risk, threat perception, self-protection and information sources.Methods and findingsA novel mobile survey platform was deployed to recruit PEH from a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Los Angeles to participate in a monthly rapid response study of COVID-19 attitudes, behaviors, and risks. Of 90 PEH surveyed, 43 (48%) expressed some level of vaccine hesitancy based either on actual vaccine offers (17/90 = 19%) or a hypothetical offer (73/90 = 81%). In bivariate analysis, those with high COVID-19 threat perception were less likely to be vaccine hesitant (OR=0.34, P=.03), while those who frequently practiced COVID-19 protective behaviors were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (OR=2.21, P=.08). In a multivariate model, those with high threat perception (OR=0.25, P=.02) were less likely to be hesitant, while those engaging in COVID-19 protective behaviors were more hesitant (OR=3.63, P=.02). Those who trusted official sources were less hesitant (OR=0.37, P=.08) while those who trusted friends and family for COVID-19 information (OR=2.70, P=.07) were more likely to be hesitant.ConclusionsFindings suggest that targeted educational and social influence interventions are needed to address high levels of vaccine hesitancy among PEH.

Epidemiological Differences in the Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States and China

This study forecasts Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impact in two countries at different epidemic phases, the United States (US) and China. We assessed the impact of both a vaccine that prevents infection (VES of 95%) and a vaccine that prevents only disease (VEP of 95%) through mathematical modeling. For VES of 95% and gradual easing of restrictions, vaccination in the US reduced the peak incidence of infection, disease, and death by >55% and cumulative incidence by >32% and in China by >77% and >65%, respectively. Nearly three vaccinations were needed to avert one infection in the US, but only one was needed in China. For VEP of 95%, vaccination benefits were half those for VES of 95%. In both countries, impact of vaccination was substantially enhanced with rapid scale-up, vaccine coverage >50%, and slower or no easing of restrictions, particularly in the US. COVID-19 vaccination can flatten, delay, and/or prevent future epidemic waves. However, vaccine impact is destined to be heterogeneous across countries because of an underlying “epidemiologic inequity” that reduces benefits for countries already at high incidence, such as the US. Despite 95% efficacy, actual vaccine impact could be meager in such countries if vaccine scale-up is slow, acceptance is poor, or restrictions are eased prematurely.

Revaccination following suspected vaccine triggered hypersensitivity reactions: experience of a tertiary care centre

Introduction and objectives: Suspected hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) associated with vaccines are frequently reported, but confirmed cases of vaccine-triggered HRs are rare. Suspected HRs should be distinguished from actual HRs. The aims of this study are to identify the rate of actual vaccine-triggered hypersensitivity in patients who were referred to the paediatric allergy clinic due to a suspected HR and to explore the rate of revaccination in a real clinical setting. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was performed with a group of preschool children who were evaluated by skin and/or provocation tests (PTs) for the suspected HRs following vaccination. Results: A total of 26 paediatric patients (61.5% male; median age 9 months) with a previous history of suspected vaccine-triggered HR were included. In this group, 69.2% and 38.5% of the patients had a pre-existing atopic disease and an immediate reaction (emerging <1 hour after vaccine administration), respectively. Skin rash was the most frequent clinical presentation (96.1%). Vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis was reported in six patients (23.1%). Measles-mumps-rubella was the most frequently suspected vaccine causing HRs. The skin test positivity with the suspected vaccine was 4%, whereas PTs revealed no reaction after reimmunisation in 76.9% (20/26) of the study participants tested. Conclusions: Most incidents of skin rashes after immunisation are not suggestive of actual HRs. The results in the current study showed that the majority of the patients presenting with suspected HRs tolerated revaccination, including those with a previous history of suspected anaphylaxis. Revaccination of these patients is safe with adequate precautions. It is absolutely essential to be equipped for the management of anaphylaxis.

Epidemiological differences in the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States and China

Background: The objective of this study was to forecast the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States (US) and China, two countries at different epidemic phases. Methods: A mathematical model describing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease progression was used to investigate vaccine impact. Impact was assessed both for a vaccine that prevents infection (VEs = 95%) and a vaccine that prevents only disease (VEp = 95%). Results: For VEs = 95% and gradual easing of restrictions, vaccination in the US reduced the peak incidence of infection, disease, and death by >55% and cumulative incidence by >32%, and in China by >77% and >65%, respectively. Nearly three vaccinations were needed to avert one infection in the US, but only one was needed in China. For VEp = 95%, benefits of vaccination were half those for VEs = 95%. In both countries, the impact of vaccination was substantially enhanced with rapid scale-up, vaccine coverage >50%, and slower or no easing of restrictions, particularly in the US. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination can flatten, delay, and/or prevent future epidemic waves. However, vaccine impact is destined to be heterogeneous across countries because of an underlying epidemiologic inequity that reduces benefits for countries already at high incidence, such as the US. Despite 95% efficacy, actual vaccine impact could be meager in such countries, if vaccine scale-up is slow, acceptance of the vaccine is poor, or restrictions are eased prematurely.

Mass Spectrometric Characterization of Narcolepsy-Associated Pandemic 2009 Influenza Vaccines

The onset of narcolepsy, an irreversible sleep disorder, has been associated with 2009 influenza pandemic (pH1N1) infections in China, and with ASO3-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccinations using Pandemrix in Europe. Intriguingly, however, the increased incidence was only observed following vaccination with Pandemrix but not Arepanrix in Canada. In this study, the mutational burden of actual vaccine lots of Pandemrix (n = 6) and Arepanrix (n = 5) sourced from Canada, and Northern Europe were characterized by mass spectrometry. The four most abundant influenza proteins across both vaccines were nucleoprotein NP, hemagglutinin HA, matrix protein M1, with the exception that Pandemrix harbored a significantly increased proportion of neuraminidase NA (7.5%) as compared to Arepanrix (2.6%). Most significantly, 17 motifs in HA, NP, and M1 harbored mutations, which significantly differed in Pandemrix versus Arepanrix. Among these, a 6-fold higher deamidation of HA146 (p.Asn146Asp) in Arepanrix was found relative to Pandemrix, while NP257 (p.Thr257Ala) and NP424 (p.Thr424Ile) were increased in Pandemrix. DQ0602 binding and tetramer analysis with mutated epitopes were conducted in Pandemrix-vaccinated cases versus controls but were unremarkable. Pandemrix harbored lower mutational burden than Arepanrix, indicating higher similarity to wild-type 2009 pH1N1, which could explain differences in narcolepsy susceptibility amongst the vaccines.