COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Residents and Staff Members of Assisted Living and Residential Care Communities-Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, December 2020-April 2021

Social determinants of health and vaccine uptake during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

Social determinants of health significantly impact population health status. The aim of this systematic review was to examine which social vulnerability factors or determinants of health at the individual or county level affected vaccine uptake within the first phase of the vaccination program. We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2020 until September 2021 in Medline and Embase (Bagaria et al., 2022) and complemented the review with an assessment of pre-print literature within the same period. We restricted our criteria to studies performed in the EU/UK/EEA/US that report vaccine uptake in the general population as the primary outcome and included various social determinants of health as explanatory variables. This review provides evidence of significant associations between the early phases of vaccination uptake for SARS-CoV-2 and multiple socioeconomic factors including income, poverty, deprivation, race/ethnicity, education and health insurance. The identified associations should be taken into account to increase vaccine uptake in socially vulnerable groups, and to reduce disparities in uptake, in particular within the context of public health preparedness for future pandemics. While further corroboration is needed to explore the generalizability of these findings across the European setting, these results confirm the need to consider vulnerable groups and social determinants of health in the planning and roll-out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs and within the context of future respiratory pandemics.

Lessons Learned from the Connecticut Response to COVID-19 in Nursing Homes during the First 2 Years of the Pandemic

Nearly half of all SARS-CoV-2-related deaths in the United States occurred in long-term care facilities during the early pandemic. In Connecticut, statewide mitigation of this impact involved a collaboration between the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Yale School of Public Health, alongside existing relationships with the long-term care industry and individual facilities. This close government-academic-industry collaboration facilitated the creation of a robust COVID-19 surveillance system that allowed for real-time analysis and identification of nursing homes where outbreak support was needed. The collaboration further facilitated vaccine and booster deployment to Connecticut nursing homes at a speed that outpaced much of the country. The impact of these interventions is demonstrated through COVID-19 case and death burdens among nursing home residents and the greater Connecticut population during each wave of the pandemic. We outline the evolution and impact of these alliances and how they enabled us to prioritize facilities, interventions, and the distribution of limited resources and training throughout the pandemic. We further detail lessons learned over the first 2 years of the pandemic. Such partnerships strengthen our ability to respond effectively to public health crises and should be created and/or maintained in the face of continued pandemic threats.

Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review

Background

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.

Methods

We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.

Results

We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.

Conclusions

Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.

Evidence on the Effects of the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate on Nursing Home Staffing Levels

OBJECTIVE

To assess the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate's effects on nursing homes' nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels in states both with and without state-level vaccine mandates.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Economic Innovation Group. Including nursing home facility fixed effects provides evidence on the intertemporal effects of the federal vaccine mandate within nursing homes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The sample contains 15,031 nursing homes, representing all US nursing homes with available data.

METHODS

On January 13, 2022, the US Supreme Court upheld the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers in Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible facilities, with workers generally required to be vaccinated by March 20, 2022 (ie, the compliance date). We examined actual nursing home staffing levels in 3 time periods: (1) pre-Court decision; (2) precompliance date; and (3) postcompliance date. We separately examined staffing levels for nurse aides and licensed nursing staff. Because 28% of nursing homes were in states with state-imposed vaccine mandates that predated the Supreme Court's ruling, we divided the sample into 2 groups (nursing homes in mandate states vs nonmandate states) and performed all analyses separately.

RESULTS

Staff vaccination rates and staffing levels were higher in mandate states than nonmandate states in all 3 time periods. After the Court's decision, staff vaccination rates increased 5% in nonmandate states and 1% in mandate states (on average). We find little evidence that the Court's vaccine mandate ruling materially affected nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels, or that nursing homes in mandate states and nonmandate states were differentially affected by the Court's ruling. Staffing levels over time were generally flat, with some evidence of a modestly greater increase for nurse aide staffing in mandate states than nonmandate states, and a modestly smaller decrease for licensed nurse staffing in mandate states than nonmandate states. Finally, regression results suggest that for both nurse aides and licensed nurses, staffing levels were lower in rural and for-profit nursing homes, and higher in Medicare-only, higher quality, and hospital-based nursing homes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Results suggest the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate has not caused clinically material changes in nursing home's nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels, which continue to be primarily associated with factors that are well-known to researchers and practitioners.

An empirical assessment of the factors influencing acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine uptake between Kenyan and Hungarian residing populations: A cross-sectional study

The development of effective, safe, and acceptable vaccines is a long process. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy continues to elicit mixed reactions among different quarters despite numerous evidence of their effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the availability and acceptance rates of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, among Kenyan and Hungarian residing populations and the underlying reasons contributing to the hesitancy of uptake. A non-probability, snowball sampling design was employed, and a survey questionnaire tool link was expeditiously disseminated. Data were carefully analyzed descriptively. Demographic variables, COVID-19 awareness, possible exposure, reasons associated with hesitancy in taking up a vaccine, choice of a vaccine, and availability of vaccines among other important variables were tested to explore their associations with vaccine acceptance rates between the two distinct countries. A total of 1960 participants were successfully enrolled in the research study, while 67 participants were excluded based on the inclusion criterion set. There was, however, no significant difference in COVID-19 public awareness between the Kenyan and Hungarian-residing participants, p = 0.300. Of the respondents, 62.4% were willing and ready to receive vaccines against COVID-19 disease. There was a significant difference (p = 0.014) between the Kenyan and Hungarian-residing respondents concerning vaccine uptake and acceptance rates. The vaccine acceptance rates in Hungary were higher than in Kenya, with mean = 0.27, SD = 0.446, S. E = 0.045 for the Hungarian population sample and mean = 0.40, SD = 0.492, S. E = 0.026, for the Kenyan sample respectively. Concerning gender and vaccine acceptance, there was a notable significant difference between males and females, p = 0.001, where the mean for males and females were 0.29 and 0.46 respectively. Acceptance rates among males were higher than among females. The functions of One-Way ANOVA and Chi-square were used to establish any significant differences and associations between means and variables respectively. Concerns regarding the safety, efficacy, and accuracy of information about the developed vaccines are significant factors that must be promptly addressed, to arrest crises revolving around COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, especially in Kenya and among females in both populations, where acceptance rates were lower. Expansion of the screening program to incorporate antibody (serology) tests, is also highly recommended in the present circumstance. Equitable distribution of vaccines globally should be encouraged and promoted to adequately cover low- and middle-income countries. To enhance effective combat on vaccination hesitancy and apprehension in different countries, mitigation techniques unique to those countries must be adopted.

Employer requirements and COVID-19 vaccination and attitudes among healthcare personnel in the U.S.: Findings from National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module, August - September 2021

INTRODUCTION

Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine.

METHODS

Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements.

RESULTS

Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%).

CONCLUSION

In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.

What Makes Urban Communities More Resilient to COVID-19? A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

It has been more than two years since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic at the end of 2019. Many scholars have introduced the "resilience" concept into COVID-19 prevention and control to make up for the deficiencies in traditional community governance. This study analyzed the progress in research on social resilience, which is an important component of community resilience, focusing on the current literature on the impact of social resilience on COVID-19, and proposed a generalized dimension to integrated previous relevant literature. Then, VOSviewer was used to visualize and analyze the current progress of research on social resilience. The PRISMA method was used to collate studies on social resilience to the pandemic. The result showed that many current policies are effective in controlling COVID-19, but some key factors, such as vulnerable groups, social assistance, and socioeconomics, affect proper social functioning. Some scholars have proposed effective solutions to improve social resilience, such as establishing an assessment framework, identifying priority inoculation groups, and improving access to technology and cultural communication. Social resilience to COVID-19 can be enhanced by both external interventions and internal regulation. Social resilience requires these two aspects to be coordinated to strengthen community and urban pandemic resilience.

Fear of Illness and Convenient Access to Vaccines Appear to Be the Missing Keys to Successful Vaccination Campaigns: Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Decisions of Hospital Staff in Poland concerning Vaccination against Influenza and COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has lasted for two years as of 2022, and it is common knowledge that vaccines are an essential tool to mitigate the health, economic, and social fallout. Unfortunately, vaccine hesitancy is still a serious global problem, both in the general population and among healthcare workers. The authors used an original questionnaire to conduct an anonymous survey study in the University Clinical Hospital in Wrocław, Poland, in April and May of 2021 after acquiring consent from the Medical University of Wrocław, Poland Bioethical Committee. The study results demonstrate that, to a significant extent, the decisions concerning vaccinations are based on factors that are difficult to change with rational argumentation, including people’s personal opinions or beliefs concerning vaccinations and their earlier experiences with vaccinations. The study results suggest that the impregnating effect of one’s own opinions, beliefs, and experiences can be surmounted if vaccines are dispensed free and conveniently while the pathogen is irrationally and emotionally perceived as untamed and possibly severe and life threatening. It makes a significant difference as in such cases that the percentage of participants whose decisions concerning vaccination are influenced by the risks to life or health of one’s own or others rises by about 27 and 36 percent points, respectively. Therefore, in order to succeed, campaigns for vaccinations need to include strong subjective and emotional communication, appealing to negative emotions and exploiting the public’s fear of the unknown while stressing tangible and personal threats possibly resulting from acquiring a vaccine-preventable infectious disease.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Role of Socioeconomic Factors and Spatial Effects

This paper investigates the spatial dimension of socioeconomic and demographic factors behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. With a focus on a county with considerable sociodemographic diversity in the state of Texas, USA, we apply regression models to census-tract-level data of the unvaccinated population. In addition to disparities in accessing the vaccination service, particularly for residents in rural areas, empirical results confirm under-vaccination among lower socioeconomic neighborhoods and communities with signs of distrust in government. The spatial model regressions further underscore the impact that vaccine hesitancy among residents in one community spread to its nearby communities. This observed spatial spillover effect is attributable to the geographic interactions of similar socioeconomic groups.