Association of provider recommendation and offer and influenza vaccination among adults aged ≥18 years - United States

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions towards pneumococcal vaccines among adults in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The attitudes and perceptions of healthcare consumers (HCCs) are increasingly becoming more relevant in decision-making with healthcare providers and incorporated into healthcare decision-making by national immunization technical advisory groups and health technology assessment agencies. With newer pneumococcal vaccine options available, HCCs' attitudes and perceptions play a key role in gauging potential acceptance. The objective of this study was to assess HCCs' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward pneumococcal vaccines for adults.

METHODS

Between March and May 2024, eligible U.S. adult HCCs were invited to participate in an online survey focusing on experiences and attitudes toward vaccines.

RESULTS

Among 141 participating HCCs, average age was 53.1 years. The majority of participants were male (51.1%) and 64.5% identified as White. Most HCCs received at least one vaccine in the past year (81.6%). HCCs most often received vaccines at medical offices and pharmacies. HCCs supported lowering the age-based pneumococcal vaccine recommendation to all adults 50 years and older and were willing to receive a supplemental pneumococcal vaccine dose following completion of the recommended series for additional protection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that new adult pneumococcal vaccines would be accepted and valued by HCCs if recommended by HCPs.

Implementation strategies to increase seasonal influenza vaccination among adults: A rapid scoping review

Many strategies have been applied to increase seasonal influenza vaccination; however, gaps in coverage remain. We synthesized the evidence on effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase seasonal influenza vaccination among U.S. adults. Studies performed from February 2010-August 2023 in the United States, focused on seasonal influenza vaccination, and measuring uptake and coverage were included. Guidance from Cochrane was followed. Interventions were mapped to Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies. A total of 1,585 non-duplicate records were identified, full-text screening was performed for 353 records, and 51 studies met inclusion criteria. Among these studies, implementation strategies included those that engaged consumers, trained and educated stakeholders, and supported providers. Considerable heterogeneity was found in the study setting, populations, design, and methods. Substantial study variation limits the ability to conclude which strategies are most effective at increasing influenza vaccination uptake and coverage in U.S. adults.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination and Spontaneous Abortion

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and spontaneous abortion.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study of clinically adjudicated spontaneous abortions (case group) occurring between January 19, 2021, and October 27, 2021, and live births (control group). Patients aged 16-49 years at eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites who had singleton pregnancies, one or more prenatal visits, continuous health plan enrollment, and spontaneous abortion (fetal loss between 6 and less than 20 weeks of gestation) or live birth were eligible. A random sample of eligible patients with spontaneous abortions was adjudicated to confirm pregnancy outcome, outcome date, and gestational age at fetal death; patients in the adjudicated spontaneous abortion case group were matched 1:2 on Vaccine Safety Datalink site, maternal age, and pregnancy start date with eligible patients with live births. Vaccine exposure was considered from pregnancy start to spontaneous abortion date or equivalent gestational age for the matched live births (index date). Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and spontaneous abortion; secondary analyses explored associations by dose number, vaccine manufacturer, and vaccination within 6 weeks of the spontaneous abortion.

RESULTS

Matched analyses included 296 patients in the spontaneous abortion case group and 592 in the live birth control group. There was no association between spontaneous abortion and COVID-19 vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.85, 95% CI, 0.56-1.30). There was also no association between spontaneous abortion and dose number compared with no vaccine (one dose: aOR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.39-1.70; two doses: aOR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.51-1.38; vaccine manufacturer: Moderna aOR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.29-1.19 and Pfizer-BioNTech aOR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.57-1.66; or vaccine exposure window of 6 weeks before spontaneous abortion or index date: aOR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.53-1.44).

CONCLUSION

There was no observed association between COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and spontaneous abortion. Findings support the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in early pregnancy.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices among healthcare providers in the US

OBJECTIVE

To understand relationships between COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, confidence, trust, sociodemographic/practice characteristics, and COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices among US healthcare providers.

METHODS

In November 2021, an electronic survey was administered to nurses and physicians in the US via Qualtrics®. The survey included: (1) COVID-19 perceptions, (2) vaccine confidence, (3) trust, (4) uptake, (5) recommendation practices, and (6) sociodemographic/practice characteristics. Binary logistic regressions were used to obtain unadjusted/adjusted odds ratios in predicting recommendation practices of COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

The survey included 304 participants. In adjusted analyses, not believing that COVID-19 was man-made, not living in southeastern US (as compared to living in southeast), having no concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, having more positive perceptions about the vaccines, and having more trust in healthcare, media, vaccine manufacturers, and public health authorities was significantly (p < 0.05) related to routinely recommending the vaccine for all patients 12 and older. Providers who did not think COVID-19 was man-made had 6.1 (95 % CI = 1.10 - 33.5) times the odds to recommend the vaccine. Providers not practicing in the southeast region had 5.2 (95 % CI = 1.39 - 19.8) times the odds to recommend the vaccine.

CONCLUSION

To increase provider recommendation of COVID-19 vaccines, beliefs about disease origin, concerns, and trust should be addressed.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clear, accurate, and trusted information delivery about COVID-19 vaccines to healthcare providers is needed, and in turn this may reduce patient vaccine hesitancy.

Adult vaccination coverage in the United States: A database analysis and literature review of improvement strategies

Despite vaccines being instrumental in reducing vaccine-preventable disease, adult vaccination rates in the United States (US) are below optimal levels. To better understand factors affecting vaccination rates, we analyzed trends in adult vaccination coverage using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) on interventions to improve adult vaccination rates in the US. Both the BRFSS analysis and the TLR focused on influenza; pneumococcal disease; tetanus and diphtheria or tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis; herpes zoster; and human papillomavirus vaccination for US adults aged 18-64 years. The TLR additionally included hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccination. Vaccination coverage rates (VCRs) and changes in VCRs were calculated using the 2011-2019 BRFSS survey data. For the TLR, the MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process databases were searched for articles on vaccination interventions published between January 2015 and June 2021. The BRFSS analysis showed that changes in VCRs were generally modest and positive for most states over the study period. The TLR included 32 articles that met the eligibility criteria; intervention strategies that improved adult vaccination outcomes incorporated an educational component, vaccination reminders or reinforcement at the point of care, or authorized non-clinician members of the healthcare team to vaccinate. Furthermore, interventions combining more than one approach appeared to enhance effectiveness. The strategies identified in this TLR will be valuable for policymakers and stakeholders to inform the development and implementation of evidence-based policies and practices to improve adult vaccination coverage.

Perceived impact of discussions with a healthcare professional on patients' decision regarding COVID-19 vaccine

There is evidence that advice from Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) plays an important role in patients' decision to get vaccinated, but the extent to which patients perceive this impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived impact of a discussion with a HCP on participants' decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults who consulted a general practitioner (GP) or a pharmacist in Ile-de-France, France, after COVID-19 vaccines became available (October-November 2021 period). A total of 344 participants were included, 65.2% of whom reported having had a discussion about COVID-19 vaccines with a HCP. Overall, 55% of participants were advised to be vaccinated by their HCP. Most of the discussions took place with a GP (n = 203, 48.9%). According to 52.5% of participants, the discussion had a positive impact, i.e. it was perceived as encouraging vaccination. The latter reported that, among HCPs, GPs had the greatest number of discussions with a positive impact on the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (93.1%). In the study population, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate, according to the WHO definition, was high (38.1%), although the COVID-19 vaccine coverage rate was 87.1%. Vaccine hesitant participants were more likely to report a discussion that had a perceived negative impact on their decision to get vaccinated (20.0%) than non-hesitant participants (5.8%, p = .004).

Attitudes and beliefs of healthcare providers toward vaccination in the United States: A cross-sectional online survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers' (HCPs') beliefs and practices regarding vaccination influence vaccine acceptance in patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe HCPs' beliefs and practices regarding vaccines and perceptions of patient perspectives related to vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional, online survey administered to 1213 HCPs based in the United States from December 2021 through January 2022. HCPs provided responses regarding their demographic and professional characteristics, beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness, vaccination practices, and their views regarding patients' willingness to receive vaccination.

RESULTS

Study participants included doctors (55.4 %); physician assistants (11.2 %); pharmacists (11.7 %); nurse practitioners (11.1 %); and registered nurses (10.6 %) from across the United States (West, 35.6 %; Midwest, 27.0 %; South, 25.6 %; Northeast, 11.9 %). HCPs belonged to group practices or clinics (34.5 %), private practices (31.9 %), hospital-based practices (21.9 %), or pharmacies (11.7 %). Most HCPs strongly believed it was their duty to promote vaccination (78.1 %) and used in-person conversations to educate patients about vaccines (85.0 %); 95.1 % had been vaccinated against COVID-19. HCPs reported that 54.9 % of patients accept all vaccines without hesitation, 21.0 % accept all vaccines but hesitate, 16.8 % accept only select vaccines, and 7.2 % reject all vaccines. Reasons commonly cited by patients for being hesitant to accept vaccines or refusal included negative media (hesitancy: 64.6 %; refusal: 73.2 %), the influence of friends or family (hesitancy: 60.5 %; refusal: 68.7 %), distrust of the government (hesitancy: 45.8 %; refusal: 68.4 %), concerns over long-term side effects (hesitancy: 56.1 %; refusal: 68.3 %), and worries about vaccine-related autism or infertility (hesitancy: 49.7 %; refusal: 71.9 %). HCPs reported that the largest contributors to vaccine misinformation among patients were social media (91.0 %), celebrities/TV personalities (63.5 %), and mass media (61.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite most HCPs being active proponents of vaccination, misconceptions about vaccination and vaccine hesitancy persists. Consideration should be given to HCP training to support their efforts to promote vaccine acceptance.

Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions

Believing conspiracy narratives is frequently assumed to be a major cause of vaccine hesitancy, i.e., the tendency to forgo vaccination despite its availability. In this scoping review, we synthesise and critically evaluate studies that assess i) the occurrence of vaccine-related conspiracy narratives on the internet, ii) the prevalence of belief in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives, iii) the relationship between belief in conspiracy narratives and vaccination intention or vaccination uptake, and iv) interventions that reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives on vaccination intention.In July 2022, we conducted a literature search using three databases: PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. Following the PRISMA approach, of the 500 initially identified articles, 205 were eligible and analysed.The majority of identified studies were conducted in Europe and North America, were published in 2021 and 2022, and investigated conspiracy narratives around the COVID-19 vaccination. The prevalence of belief in various vaccine-related conspiracy narratives varied greatly across studies, from 2 to 77%. We identified seven experimental studies investigating the effect of exposure to conspiracy narratives on vaccination intentions, of which six indicated a small negative effect. These findings are complemented by the evidence from over 100 correlative studies showing a significant negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intention or uptake. Additionally, the review identified interventions (e.g., social norm feedback, fact-checking labels, or prebunking) that decreased beliefs in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives and, in some cases, also increased vaccination intentions. Yet, these interventions had only small effects.In summary, the review revealed that vaccine-related conspiracy narratives have spread to varying degrees and can influence vaccination decisions. Causal relationships between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions remain underexplored. Further, the review identified a need for more research on interventions that can reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives.

Association Between Medical Debt and Vaccine Uptake in the USA, 2021-2022

BACKGROUND

Many individuals do not receive recommended vaccines, increasing infectious disease morbidity and mortality. It is unknown whether the financial practices of US healthcare institutions contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether medical debt is associated with low vaccine uptake.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of the association between medical debt and vaccine receipt.

SUBJECTS

56,373 adult participants in the 2021-2022 National Health Interview Survey.

INTERVENTIONS

Presence of medical debt at the time of survey administration.

MAIN MEASURES

We used logistic regression models to assess whether medical debt was associated with recent vaccine receipt, adjusting for sociodemographic, health, and access-to-care variables. We performed a sensitivity analysis restricted to individuals with health insurance and conducted a falsification test of the hypothesis that current medical debt would not be associated with remote prior vaccination (i.e., > 1 year prior, likely before debt acquisition).

KEY RESULTS

Individuals with medical debt were less likely than those without such debt to receive any recent vaccine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.91), including influenza vaccination (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91) or COVID-19 vaccination (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91). Analyses limited to insured individuals had similar findings (aOR for any recent vaccination 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.88). In the falsification test, current medical debt was not associated with remote prior vaccination (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Current medical debt is associated with lower likelihood of recent vaccine receipt in both insured and uninsured individuals. Policies that minimize medical debt may improve vaccine coverage.

An assessment of the content of antenatal care provided by obstetricians in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study

Quality and timely antenatal care is a vital component of pregnancy care for the well-being of mothers and babies. The aim of this study of to assess self-reported obstetricians' adherence to national and international antenatal care guidelines in Lebanon. This cross-sectional study approached all obstetricians registered with the Lebanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Lebanese Order of Physicians to participate in an online and telephone-based survey. The study tool included all of the items from the World Health Organization and national guidelines for antenatal care. Obstetricians' self-reported adherence was assessed across five modules including dietary interventions, dietary supplements, antenatal care assessment, fetal growth assessment, and antenatal care preventive measures. A total of 134 obstetricians completed the survey. Overall, adherence was high for most antenatal care guidelines except for providing nutrition services to undernourished pregnant women, screening for intimate partner violence, and providing tetanus vaccines. The number of recommended antenatal care visits (≥8 vs. <8 visits) was higher among obstetricians in Mount Lebanon or Beirut compared to other areas in Lebanon (72.7%vs.48.6%; p-value <0.01). Provision of tetanus or diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccination was lower for obstetricians who provide care for women who pay out-of-pocket compared to obstetricians who provide care to women who use other payment methods (25.3%vs.45.7%; p-value = 0.024). Group B streptococcus screening test and the provision of at least five ultrasounds were higher among obstetricians who provide care in private clinics or clinics in private hospitals compared to clinics in public hospitals or primary healthcare centers (88.8%vs.66.7%; p-value = 0.023) and (83.6%vs.55.6%; p-value = 0.011), respectively. Reinforcing the adherence to all antenatal care guidelines by continuous monitoring of health facilities is crucial for best practice. Subsidies for essential services may be required for those who are unable to afford components of antenatal care.

Primary care providers' views of discussing COVID-19 vaccination with vaccine hesitant patients: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To describe primary care providers' (PCPs) perspectives on discussing COVID-19 vaccination with their patients.

METHODS

All PCPs from 11 primary care clinics at 3 health systems were invited to participate. Focus groups were conducted between December 2021-January 2022, and were recorded and transcribed. Participants were asked about their experience communicating about the COVID-19 vaccine. Themes and subthemes were inductively identified using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

40 PCPs participated. All PCPs viewed discussing COVID-19 vaccination as high priority. Strategies for promoting COVID-19 vaccination included influencing what people think and feel, building trust and leveraging their relationship with patients, and practical strategies such as on-site vaccination. Most strategies aimed at influencing what people think and feel and leveraging relationships were viewed as generally ineffective. On-site vaccine availability was identified as the most influential factor. PCPs expressed frustration by their interactions with vaccine hesitant patients, leading them to truncate their communication with these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using a broad range of strategies, most PCPs were unable to change the strongly held beliefs among the most vaccine hesitant patients that were often informed by misinformation and mistrust.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Promising strategies for promoting vaccination include social/relational (expressing empathy) and practical (on-site COVID-19 vaccine availability).

Association of the belief in conspiracy narratives with vaccination status and recommendation behaviours of German physicians

Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO). The belief in conspiracy narratives is repeatedly discussed as a major driver of vaccine hesitancy among the general population. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of the belief in conspiracy narratives in vaccination decisions and recommendation behaviours of physicians. This is particularly relevant as physicians are one of the major and trusted sources of information for patients' vaccination decisions. This study therefore investigated the association between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives and physicians' own COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation behavior for COVID-19 and other vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu). In a cross-sectional survey among German physicians (N = 602, April 2022) two conspiracy narratives were assessed, stating that the coronavirus is a hoax or that it is human-made. Additional control variables included trust in health institutions, the rejection of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) and demographic variables. Hierarchical regressions indicated that greater belief in the conspiracy narrative claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake and fewer COVID-19 vaccination recommendations among physicians. The results for recommendation behavior remain robust even when controlling for other variables. Contrary to our assumption, believing that the coronavirus is human-made was not related to vaccination status nor vaccine recommendation behavior. In conclusion, believing in conspiracy narratives that question the existence and thus also the danger of the virus is an important independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy among physicians that should be addressed in future public health interventions.

Vaccination Motivators and Deterrents Among Undervaccinated Older Adults in North Dakota

Despite increased risk of morbidity and mortality among older adults due to preventable infectious diseases such as influenza, shingles, pneumonia, and COVID-19, many forego receiving some, if not all, of these vaccinations. This study examines vaccination motivators and deterrents for undervaccinated older adults in North Dakota (ND). Adults aged 65+ in ND were mailed a survey (n = 901) with questions gauging vaccination behaviors and perceptions, with 132 of these indicating not receiving certain vaccinations. Further questions assessed reasons they have not been vaccinated against the following diseases: influenza, shingles, pneumonia, and COVID-19 (e.g., "Concerned about side effects", "Vaccines are dangerous", "I'm healthy and I do not need it") and what would make it more likely to get a vaccine (e.g., "More information", "Doctor recommendation", "Easy access to vaccines"). Reasons for remaining unvaccinated varied by vaccine. For influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, respondents were more likely to indicate they are healthy and do not need the vaccine. For shingles and COVID-19, respondents were more likely to indicate concerns about side effects. Factors reported to motivate increasing the likelihood of getting a vaccine were receiving a doctor recommendation, receiving more information, and having a vaccine provided at no cost. These results contribute to our understanding of vaccination behaviors among older adults and underscore specific issues around which to frame interventions tailored to increase vaccine uptake for this population.

Combating the Co-Circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and Seasonal Influenza: Identifying Multi-Dimensional Factors Associated with the Uptake of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine among a Chinese National Sample

INTRODUCTION

The co-circulation of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza highlighted the importance of promoting influenza vaccination. However, the influenza vaccination rate among the Chinese population is low and requires further promotion. This study examined multi-dimensional factors, such as knowledge of seasonal influenza, health perceptions, cues to action, patient-provider relationships, and COVID-19 pandemic-related factors, in relation to the uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) among the Chinese population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, self-administered online survey using a quota sampling method was conducted among Chinese adults 18 years and older between June and August 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to explore factors associated with the 2021 SIV behavior.

RESULTS

A total of 3161 individuals from different regions of China were included in this study. The multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that perceived severity of influenza, perceived barriers to taking SIV, cues to action, a stable relationship with providers, worry about contracting COVID-19 in immunization settings, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), and awareness of the influenza vaccine in protecting against COVID-19 were significantly associated with the SIV uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined multi-dimensional factors that may influence SIV uptake. Health promotion programs should incorporate multi-dimensional factors, including personal and environmental factors, related to SIV promotion during the co-circulation period.

The status and influencing factors of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with COPD

In this study, we investigated the status and influencing factors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A questionnaire on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with COPD was developed. The clinical characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination status, other relevant vaccinations, and vaccination status of the patients with COPD were collected anonymously. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination in patients with COPD. There were 1898 returned questionnaires, of which 1874 were valid. The proportion of patients who completed the COVID-19 vaccination program was 78.60%. Factors influencing the COVID-19 vaccination rate were: the age of individuals who were 75-85 years old and > 85 years old, acute exacerbation 3-4 times in the previous year, comorbid cardiovascular and endocrine system diseases, failure to take regular medication for COPD, application of non-invasive ventilation machines, believing that their current health condition has deteriorated, believing that the current COVID-19 vaccine is not safe, medical staff not specifying whether they would recommend vaccination against COVID-19, medical staff not recommending the COVID-19 vaccine, and fear of adverse reactions and aggravation of COPD. Patients with COPD had a high COVID-19 vaccination rate in China, whereas patients with pneumonia, influenza, and herpes zoster had a low vaccination rate. Improving the patients' understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and promoting effective communication between medical staff and patients would help increase the vaccination rate of patients with COPD.

The Effect of a Quality Improvement Project on Improving Patients' Willingness to Receive an Influenza Vaccination in the Emergency Department

The aim of this project was to increase willingness to receive the influenza vaccine to the optimal rate of ≥ 70%. Low acuity adult patients who visited an Emergency Department (ED) were assessed regarding their willingness to receive the influenza vaccine before and after an educational intervention that included a provider recommendation and an educational handout. A total of seventy-six patients (n = 76) were assessed. Patients' willingness to receive the influenza vaccine rose from 29% pre-intervention to 72% post-intervention without disrupting the clinical flow in a busy ED. Similar vaccine educational strategies can be applied to influenza and other vaccines in EDs  to increase vaccination willingness in patients, including those who use the ED as a primary point of contact for healthcare, decreasing the burden of influenza illness in the community.

Effectiveness of educational interventions for healthcare workers on vaccination dialogue with older adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCW) significantly influence older adults' vaccine acceptance. This systematic review aimed to identify effective educational interventions for HCWs that could enhance their ability to engage in a dialogue with older adults on vaccination.

METHODS

Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library and grey literature were searched for comparative studies investigating educational interventions concerning older adult vaccinations. The search encompassed all languages and publication years. Analysis was performed on the outcomes 'vaccines offered or ordered' and 'vaccination rates'. Whenever feasible, a sub-analysis on publication year was conducted. Methodological limitations were assessed using the RoB 2 for RCTs and the GRADE checklist for non-randomized studies. Study outcomes were categorized according to the four-level Kirkpatrick model (1996) for effectiveness: reaction, learning, behaviour, and results.

RESULTS

In total, 48 studies met all inclusion criteria. Most studies included reminder systems signalling HCWs on patients due for vaccination. Other interventions included seminars, academic detailing and peer-comparison feedback. Four articles reporting on the reaction-level indicated that most HCWs had a favourable view of the intervention. Two of the six articles reporting on the learning-level observed positive changes in attitude or knowledge due to the intervention. Seventeen studies reported on the behaviour-level. An analysis on eleven out of seventeen studies focusing on vaccines 'ordered' or 'offered' outcomes suggested that tailored reminders, particularly those implemented before 2000, were the most effective. Out of 34 studies reporting on the result-level, 24 were eligible for analysis on the outcome 'vaccination rate', which showed that compared to usual care, multicomponent interventions were the most effective, followed by tailored reminders, especially those predating 2000. Nonetheless, tailored reminders often fell short compared to other interventions like standing orders or patient reminders. In both the behaviour-level and result-level 'education only' interventions frequently underperformed relative to other interventions. Seventeen out of the 27 RCTs, and seven of the 21 non-randomized studies presented a low-to-medium risk for bias in the studies' findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored reminders and multicomponent interventions effectively assist HCWs in addressing vaccines with older adults. However, education-only interventions appear to be less effective compared to other interventions rates, attitude, knowledge.

Assessing interventions to encourage primary care health workers to recommend influenza vaccination and the impact on vaccination uptake for persons with Non-Communicable diseases in China

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination coverage is low among persons with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in China. Chinese health workers (HWs) do not routinely recommend influenza vaccination despite evidence that recommendations increase vaccine uptake. This study aims to assess whether interventions increased primary care HWs' recommendation for influenza vaccination and measure their impact on influenza vaccine uptake in persons with NCDs.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled study in public primary healthcare clinics in Hubei from November 2018 through April 2019. In the intervention clinics, primary care HWs received training on the benefits of influenza vaccination and were asked to recommend influenza vaccine in routine primary healthcare for persons with NCDs. In the control clinics, primary care HWs did not receive training and provided standard services. We conducted questionnaire surveys before and after the intervention to collect information about recommendations made and receipt of influenza vaccines.

RESULTS

A total of 896 primary care HWs and 4552 persons with NCDs were included. After intervention, a higher percentage of HWs recommended influenza vaccines in intervention clinics compared to control clinics. Vaccinated primary care HWs were more likely to recommend vaccination. Persons with NCDs reported higher influenza vaccination coverage in intervention than control clinics, and primary care HWs' recommendation increased vaccination uptake among persons with NCDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccinated primary care HWs were more likely to recommend influenza vaccination than unvaccinated HWs. Promoting primary care HWs' vaccination and encouraging them to recommend influenza vaccination during routine primary healthcare could increase influenza vaccine receipt among persons with NCDs. Registration number ChiCTR2200067140.

Comparison of adult hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general in the USA

BACKGROUND

Adults who are hesitant toward routinely recommended vaccines for adults may also be hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines. However, the distribution and differences in hesitancy between routinely recommended vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines, and the association of hesitancy regarding routinely recommended vaccines and hesitancy with COVID-19 vaccination status and intent, is unknown.

METHODS

Using the Research and Development Survey (RANDS) during COVID-19, Round 3, a probability-sampled, nationally representative, web and phone survey fielded from May 17 - June 30, 2021 (n = 5,434), we examined the distribution and difference in prevalence of hesitancy towards COVID-19 and vaccines in general, beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy, and factors impacting plans to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

RESULTS

Reported hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines (42.2%) was 6-percentage points higher than hesitancy towards vaccines in general (35.7%). Populations who were most hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines were younger adults, non-Hispanic Black adults, adults with lower education or income, and adults who were associated with a religion. Beliefs in the social benefit and the importance of vaccination, and the belief that COVID-19 vaccines lower risk for infection, were strongly associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent to be vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine hesitancy for both COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general is common. Health providers and public health officials should utilize strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, including providing strong clear recommendations for needed vaccines, addressing safety and effectiveness concerns, and utilizing trusted messengers such as religious and community leaders to improve vaccine confidence.

Vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices among health care providers in New York State

Community-wide vaccine uptake remains sub-optimal. Healthcare provider (HCP) vaccine recommendations influence patient vaccination; however, provider vaccine recommendation behavior is highly influenced by one's own vaccine attitudes and/or knowledge. We aim to describe vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices (KAP) among New York State HCPs. A survey to assess HCP KAP was developed and electronically distributed to NYS members of national medical organizations via their local chapter administrators. Descriptive statistical methods were used to define provider KAP. A total of 864 surveys were included, 500 (60%) and 336 (40%) primary and specialty care providers, respectively. Eighty-one percent (402/499) of primary care providers (PCPs) report encountering vaccine hesitant patients daily or weekly. Of the 500 PCPs who responded, only 204 (41%) stated strong agreement with confidence in their communications with vaccine hesitant patients. HCPs who correctly answered all four knowledge questions were more likely to self-report routine recommendations of standard vaccines to all patients when compared to those who correctly answered fewer questions (489/588 (83%) vs 135/241 (56%), p < .05). HCPs were more likely to routinely recommend standard vaccines to all patients if they also report initiating vaccine discussion (476/485 (98%) vs 148/344 (43%), p < .05) and reviewing and recommending vaccinations at each encounter (315/320 (98%) vs 308/508 (61%), p < .05). Vaccine hesitancy exists across healthcare specialties and provider roles. Focused interventions should include reaching all HCPs to promote vaccinations for disease prevention, tailoring messages to reduce HCP vaccine misperceptions, and increasing awareness of evidence-based office strategies known to facilitate immunizations.

Influenza, Updated COVID-19, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination Coverage Among Adults - United States, Fall 2023

During the 2023-24 respiratory virus season, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends influenza and COVID-19 vaccines for all persons aged ≥6 months, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine is recommended for persons aged ≥60 years (using shared clinical decision-making), and for pregnant persons. Data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module, a random-digit-dialed cellular telephone survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years, are used to monitor influenza, COVID-19, and RSV vaccination coverage. By December 9, 2023, an estimated 42.2% and 18.3% of adults aged ≥18 years reported receiving an influenza and updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine, respectively; 17.0% of adults aged ≥60 years had received RSV vaccine. Coverage varied by demographic characteristics. Overall, approximately 27% and 41% of adults aged ≥18 years and 53% of adults aged ≥60 years reported that they definitely or probably will be vaccinated or were unsure whether they would be vaccinated against influenza, COVID-19, and RSV, respectively. Strong provider recommendations for and offers of vaccination could increase influenza, COVID-19, and RSV vaccination coverage. Immunization programs and vaccination partners are encouraged to use these data to understand vaccination patterns and attitudes toward vaccination in their jurisdictions to guide planning, implementation, strengthening, and evaluation of vaccination activities.

COVID-19 Vaccination Willingness and Reasons for Vaccine Refusal

Importance

Hong Kong was held as an exemplar for pandemic response until it recorded the world's highest daily COVID-19 mortality, which was likely due to vaccine refusal. To prevent this high mortality in future pandemics, information on underlying reasons for vaccine refusal is necessary.

Objectives

To track the evolution of COVID-19 vaccination willingness and uptake from before vaccine rollout to mass vaccination, to examine factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine refusal and compare with data from Singapore, and to assess the population attributable fraction for vaccine refusal.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data from randomly sampled participants from 14 waves of population-based studies in Hong Kong (February 2020 to May 2022) and 2 waves of population-based studies in Singapore (May 2020 to June 2021 and October 2021 to January 2022), and a population-wide registry of COVID-19 vaccination appointments. Data were analyzed from February 23, 2021, to May 30, 2022.

Exposures

Trust in COVID-19 vaccine information sources (ie, health authorities, physicians, traditional media, and social media); COVID-19 vaccine confidence on effectiveness, safety, and importance; COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions on safety and high-risk groups; political views; and COVID-19 policies (ie, workplace vaccine mandates and vaccine pass).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the weighted prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination willingness over the pandemic, adjusted incidence rate ratios, and population attributable fractions of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. A secondary outcome was change in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments.

Results

The study included 28 007 interviews from 20 waves of longitudinal data, with 1114 participants in the most recent wave (median [range] age, 54.2 years [20-92] years; 571 [51.3%] female). Four factors-mistrust in health authorities, low vaccine confidence, vaccine misconceptions, and political views-could jointly account for 82.2% (95% CI, 62.3%-100.0%) of vaccine refusal in adults aged 18 to 59 years and 69.3% (95% CI, 47.2%-91.4%) of vaccine refusal in adults aged 60 years and older. Workplace vaccine mandates were associated with 62.2% (95% CI, 9.9%-139.2%) increases in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments, and the Hong Kong vaccine pass was associated with 124.8% (95% CI, 65.9%-204.6%) increases in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that trust in health authorities was fundamental to overcoming vaccine hesitancy. As such, engendering trust in health care professionals, experts, and public health agencies should be incorporated into pandemic preparedness and response.

Enhancing Hepatitis A and B Vaccinations Through Electronic Clinical Decision Support Systems and Staff Education in a Correctional Facility

BACKGROUND

Despite the prevalence and risks for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and the availability of safe and effective vaccines, HAV/HBV vaccinations are disproportionately low in jails. This quality improvement project evaluated the effectiveness of clinical decision support systems: electronic standing orders to nurses, clinical alerts to nurses and healthcare providers, and secondarily staff education in enhancing HAV and HBV vaccination and knowledge of hepatitis infection.

METHODS

We distributed a validated self-report hepatitis knowledge questionnaire (α = 0.7-0.8) before and after an educational presentation to nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians ( N = 26) at a Northeastern state jail and then embedded electronic clinical alerts and standing orders in the electronic medical record. The questionnaire assessed pre- and posteducation knowledge scores. The number of vaccine status screenings and vaccinations was retrieved from the electronic medical record 3 months pre- and post-implementation. Descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one participants completed the pretest, 18 attended the educational intervention, and 15 completed the posttest. Vaccine status screening increased by 97.5%, and HAV and HBV vaccinations increased by 8.7%. Knowledge scores improved significantly post-intervention ( p = 0.04), with an effect size of r = 0.67).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Using the Donabedian quality of care model, we showed that quality initiatives are feasible in a jail setting. Implementing a clinical decision support system and education improved the vaccination rate, which may decrease HAV/HBV incidence in the jail and prevent community spread.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Providing Recommendations During Goals-of-Care Conversations: A Multisite Survey

Background: Goals-of-care conversations (GoCCs) are essential for individualized end-of-life care. Shared decision-making (SDM) that elicits patients' goals and values to collaboratively make life sustaining treatment (LST) decisions is best practice. However, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic onset and associated changes to care delivery, stress on providers, and clinical uncertainty affected SDM and recommendation-making during GoCCs. Aim: To assess providers' attitudes and behaviors related to GoCCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify factors associated with provision of LST recommendations. Design: Survey of United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care providers. Setting/Participants: Health care providers from 20 VA facilities with high COVID-19 caseloads early in the pandemic who had authority to place LST orders and practiced in select specialties (n = 3398). Results: We had 323 respondents (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most were age ≥50 years (51%), female (63%), non-Hispanic white (64%), and had ≥1 GoCC per week during peak-COVID-19 (78%). Compared with pre-COVID-19, providers believed it was less appropriate and felt less comfortable giving an LST recommendation during peak-COVID-19 (p < 0.001). One-third (32%) reported either "never" or "rarely" giving an LST recommendation during GoCCs at peak-COVID-19. In adjusted regression models, being a physician and discussing patients' goals and values were positively associated with giving an LST recommendation (B = 0.380, p = 0.031 and B = 0.400, p < 0.001, respectively) at peak-COVID-19. Conclusion: Providers who discuss patients' preferences and values are more likely to report giving a recommendation; both behaviors are markers of SDM during GoCCs. Our findings suggest potential areas for training in conducting patient-centered GoCCs.

Assessing Doubts, Knowledge, and Service Appreciation among Pregnant Women Who Received the COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Research Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered one of the deadliest pandemics in history. Pregnant women are more susceptible to developing serious diseases during COVID-19 than their non-pregnant peers. Pregnant women often express doubt about accepting the vaccination, especially in regard to their security and safety. This study aims to investigate the appreciation of the vaccination offer, and if there are any determinants impacting vaccine hesitancy. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of pregnant women who had just received their immunization against COVID-19 at the vaccination service of a teaching hospital in Rome, from October 2021 to March 2022. A high appreciation of the vaccination services was found, both for the logistic organization and the healthcare personnel, with mean scores above 4 out of 5. The degree of pre-vaccinal doubt was low (41%) or medium (48%) for the largest part of the sample, while the degree of COVID-19 vaccine knowledge was high for 91% of the participants. Physicians were the most decisive information source for the vaccination choice. Our results highlighted that a supportive approach could increase appreciation and improve the setting of vaccinations. Healthcare professionals should aim for a more comprehensive and integrated role of all figures.

Prevalence of influenza-specific vaccination hesitancy among adults in the United States, 2018

BACKGROUND

The role of vaccine hesitancy on influenza vaccination is not clearly understood. Low influenza vaccination coverage in U.S. adults suggests that a multitude of factors may be responsible for under-vaccination or non-vaccination including vaccine hesitancy. Understanding the role of influenza vaccination hesitancy is important for targeted messaging and intervention to increase influenza vaccine confidence and uptake. The objective of this study was to quantify the prevalence of adult influenza vaccination hesitancy (IVH) and examine association of IVH beliefs with sociodemographic factors and early-season influenza vaccination.

METHODS

A four-question validated IVH module was included in the 2018 National Internet Flu Survey. Weighted proportions and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify correlates of IVH beliefs.

RESULTS

Overall, 36.9% of adults were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination; 18.6% expressed concerns about vaccination side effects; 14.8% personally knew someone with serious side effects; and 35.6% reported that their healthcare provider was not the most trusted source of information about influenza vaccinations. Influenza vaccination ranged from 15.3 to 45.2 percentage points lower among adults self-reporting any of the four IVH beliefs. Being female, age 18-49 years, non-Hispanic Black, having high school or lower education, being employed, and not having primary care medical home were associated with hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the four IVH beliefs studied, being hesitant to receiving influenza vaccination followed by mistrust of healthcare providers were identified as the most influential hesitancy beliefs. Two in five adults in the United States were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination, and hesitancy was negatively associated with vaccination. This information may assist with targeted interventions, personalized to the individual, to reduce hesitancy and thus improve influenza vaccination acceptance.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes towards mandates in a nationally representative U.S. sample

Widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination is vital to curtailing the pandemic, yet rates remain suboptimal in the U.S. Vaccine mandates have previously been successful, but are controversial. An April 2021 survey of a nationally representative sample (N = 1208) examined vaccine uptake, attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Sixty-seven percent were vaccine acceptors, 14% wait-and-see, and 19% non-acceptors. Compared to wait-and-see and non-acceptors, acceptors were more likely to have a household member over age 65, have received a flu shot, have positive COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and view COVID-19 vaccination as beneficial. Mandate support was higher among respondents who were vaccine acceptors, had positive views about COVID-19 vaccines, believed in COVID-19 preventive strategies, perceived COVID-19 as severe, were liberal, resided in the Northeast, were non-White, and had incomes < $75,000. Public health campaigns should target attitudes that appear to drive hesitancy and prepare for varying mandate support based on demographics, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and the scope of the mandate.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Differences in Influenza, Shingles, and Pneumococcal Vaccination Among U.S. Older Adults

Purpose: LGBT older adults face challenges accessing and receiving culturally competent health care and may be more vulnerable to serious outcomes from vaccine-preventable diseases. This study examines whether sexual orientation and gender identity are associated with older adult influenza, zoster ("shingles"), and pneumococcal vaccine uptake. Methods: Data come from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The sample included older adults aged 50+ (eligible for influenza and shingles vaccination; n = 136,528) and 65+ (eligible for pneumococcal vaccination; n = 74,779). We calculated rates of influenza, shingles, and pneumococcal vaccine uptake by gender-stratified sexual orientation groups and for transgender versus cisgender populations. Logistic regression models tested for associations between sexual orientation, gender identity, and vaccine uptake, controlling for key sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Transgender adults had the lowest rates of uptake across all three vaccines, including 46% lower odds of shingles vaccination and 61% lower odds of pneumococcal vaccination, when compared with cisgender adults. Gay (vs. straight) men had 1.5-1.9 times greater odds of flu and shingles vaccination. Bisexual (vs. straight) women had 32% lower odds of flu vaccination. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that vaccine uptake among LGBT older adults varies by sexual orientation, gender identity, and vaccine type. Bisexual women and transgender people are groups that tend to underutilize health care services and are at increased risk of nonvaccination, making them important targets for older adult vaccine promotion.

Can primary care physician recommendation improve influenza vaccine uptake among older adults? A community health centre-based experimental study in China

BACKGROUND

To promote influenza vaccination coverage, a Chinese megacity, Shenzhen provides free influenza vaccination to its residents aged 60 years and above through community health centres (CHCs) since October 2016. A community health centre-based experiment was conducted by asking primary care physicians (PCPs) working in the intervention health centres to proactively recommend influenza vaccination to their patients aged 60 and above during their patients' visits.

METHODS

This study used an experimental design and a survey design. The experimental design evaluated the effect of PCP recommendation on influenza vaccination. A total of 24 CHCs were randomly selected as the intervention (involving 3814 participants) and control (3072 participants) group evenly. The intervention study period was during the 2017-2018 flu season. The 2016-2017 flu season was considered as the baseline comparison. The survey design examined changes in knowledge, attitude, and practice of influenza vaccination among older participants before and after the free influenza vaccination implementation. We randomly invited 1200 participants aged 60 and above during their visits to CHCs in October 2016 and followed them up until October 2017; among them, 958 participants completed the follow-up survey using the same questionnaire.

RESULTS

In the 2017-2018 flu season, 1,100 more patients got vaccinated in the intervention group under PCP recommendation compared with the 2016-2017 flu season. Among the 958 older adults in the post-implementation period, 77.5% had heard about the influenza vaccine, which was 24.7% higher than in the pre-implementation period; 84.8% of participants were aware where to take influenza vaccines, with the most improvement of 37.2% among all knowledge related questions; 62.5% of them agreed that patients with chronic diseases should have influenza vaccine, which was 19.1% higher than those being surveyed before the implementation period. About 83.6% of participants agreed older adults should have influenza vaccine, but there were still 58.4% who considered themselves too healthy to get vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

PCP recommendation improved influenza vaccine uptake and knowledge, attitude, and practice levels regarding influenza vaccination among older adults. More health policies and health education should be made to raise vaccination willingness and improve vaccination coverage among older adults.

Low COVID-19 vaccine coverage and guardian acceptance among pediatric transplant recipients

To investigate COVID-19 vaccine coverage in immunosuppressed children, assess guardians' intention to vaccinate children, and determine reasons and associated factors. In addition, we attempted to capture the characteristics of them with Omicron. We obtained the vaccination coverage and guardian vaccine acceptance among pediatric transplant recipients through a web-based questionnaire conducted from April 12 to 28, 2022, and performed the statistical analysis. Seven organ transplant recipient children with Omicron were also clinically analyzed. The three-dose vaccine coverage for liver transplant (n = 563) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n = 122) recipient children was 0.9% and 4.9%, and guardian vaccine acceptance was 63.8%. Independent risk factors for vaccine acceptance were the child's age, geographic location, type of transplant, guardian's vaccination status, guardian's level of distress about epidemic events, guardian's risk perception ability, anxiety, and knowledge of epidemic control. The main reasons for vaccine hesitancy were fear of vaccine-induced adverse events and doubts about efficacy. Ultimately, most children infected with Omicron have mild or no symptoms and are infected by intra-family. Since vaccine coverage and guardian acceptance are lowest among liver transplant children, and the infected are mainly intra-family, we should devise more targeted education and vaccination instructions for their guardians.

COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination Coverage and Factors Associated with Booster Vaccination among Adults, United States, March 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for all persons >18 years of age. We analyzed data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during February 27-March 26, 2022 to assess COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage among adults. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with vaccination. COVID-19 booster dose coverage among fully vaccinated adults increased from 25.7% in November 2021 to 63.4% in March 2022. Coverage was lower among non-Hispanic Black (52.7%), and Hispanic (55.5%) than non-Hispanic White adults (67.7%). Coverage was 67.4% among essential healthcare personnel, 62.2% among adults who had a disability, and 69.9% among adults who had medical conditions. Booster dose coverage was not optimal, and disparities by race/ethnicity and other factors are apparent in coverage uptake. Tailored strategies are needed to educate the public and reduce disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals

OBJECTIVE

To test the impact of varied physician recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

We conducted a vignette-based experimental survey on Prolific, an online research platform. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, adult panel members were assigned to one of five messages that varied by recommendation style (participatory vs explicit) and strategy (acknowledgement of concerns; comparison to the flu shot; statement that millions of people have already received it; emphasis on protecting others). Vaccine hesitancy was re-assessed with the question, "Would you get vaccinated at this visit?".

RESULTS

Of the 752 participants, 60.1% were female, 43.4% Black, 23.6% Latino, and 33.0% White; mean age was 35.6 years. Overall, 33.1% of the initially "not sure" and 13.1% of the initially "no" participants became less hesitant following any recommendation. Among the "not sure" participants, 20.3% of those who received a participatory recommendation became less hesitant compared with 34.3%- 39.5% for the explicit recommendations. The "protect others" message was most effective among initially "no" participants; 19.8% become less hesitant, compared to 8.7% for the participatory recommendation.

CONCLUSION

A physician recommendation may reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

An explicit recommendation and "protect others" message appear to be important elements of a physician recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.

Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza risk perception and vaccination intention among Pima County residents in Arizona

While influenza cases in Arizona have nearly tripled since 2018, vaccination rates continue to lag. Statewide, Hispanics and African Americans had the lowest vaccination rates despite having higher influenza infection rates than Whites. Given Arizona's racial influenza vaccination disparity and the general increase in vaccination hesitancy due to COVID-19, the purpose of this study was to better understand the influences of seasonal influenza vaccination in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic using qualitative methods. Findings from this study revealed that many participants were motivated to get the influenza vaccine to protect their family and close friends. The heightened concern for COVID-19 prompted some Hispanic/Latino focus group discussion participants to consider getting vaccinated. However, many Hispanic/Latino participants also expressed that they stopped getting influenza vaccine due to negative vaccination experiences or concern about sickness following immunization. African American participants primarily discussed receiving the vaccine as part of their routine health visit. Compared to other races, more White participants believed that vaccination was unimportant because they were healthy, and the people they interacted with never got sick. Distinct factors influence risk perception and vaccination intention across different racial/ethnic groups. Effective interventions can account for these factors and be tailored to the target population to maximize vaccination uptake.

Adult immunization practices, challenges and opportunities in Central America and the Caribbean: Advisory board proceedings

As individuals age, they become increasingly prone to infectious diseases, many of which are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Adult immunization has become a public health priority in the modern era, yet VPDs vaccination rates for adults are low worldwide. In Central America and Caribbean, national recommendations and vaccination practices in adults differ across countries, and adult vaccination coverage data are limited. An advisory board comprised infectious disease experts, pulmonologists, geriatricians, occupational health, and public health professionals for Central America and Dominican Republic was convened to: a) describe adult immunization practices in these countries; b) discuss challenges and barriers to adult vaccination; and c) find strategies to increase awareness about VPDs. The advisory board discussions reflect that national immunization guidelines typically do not include routine vaccine recommendations for all adults, but rather focus on those with risk factors. This is the case for influenza, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B immunizations. Overall, knowledge lacks about the VPD burden among health-care professionals and the general public. Even more, there is insufficient information on vaccinology for students in medical schools. Actions from the responsible authorities - medical schools and scientific societies which can advocate for vaccination and a better knowledge in vaccinology - can help address these issues. A preventive medicine culture in the workplace may contribute to the advancement of public opinion on vaccination. Promoting vaccine education and research could be facilitated via working groups formed by disease experts, public and private sectors, and supranational authorities, in an ethical and transparent manner.

Associations between pharmacy choice and influenza vaccination: Mail order vs community pharmacy users

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of vaccines, US adult vaccination rates remain low. This is especially true for the influenza vaccine, which is recommended annually and widely available. The accessibility of community pharmacies as convenient places to receive influenza vaccines has been shown to increase uptake. However, use of mail order pharmacies may reduce in-person pharmacist encounters and reduce the likelihood that users receive annual influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the type of pharmacy a patient uses and their likelihood of receiving an influenza vaccine. METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study used the 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to observe noninstitutionalized US adult pharmacy users. Pharmacy type was dichotomized into community use only vs any mail order pharmacy use. Multivariable weighted logistic regression was used to identify associations between the type of pharmacy used and influenza vaccination, adjusting for sociodemographic, health status, and health care access and utilization confounders. All analyses were stratified by age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The aged younger than 65 years and aged 65 years and older samples had 8,074 and 4,037 respondents who represented 95,930,349 and 40,163,276 weighted observations, respectively. Compared with community pharmacy users, mail order users were more likely to be aged 65 and older, be White, have high income, and have a usual source of care (P < 0.0001). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for influenza vaccination were significantly lower among community pharmacy users than mail order users among individuals aged younger than 65 years (AOR=0.71; 95% CI = 0.580.87) but was not significant among those aged 65 years and older (AOR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.69-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy users aged younger than 65 years are less likely to receive the influenza vaccine than their mail order pharmacy user counterparts. These counterintuitive results could be caused by residual confounding due to differences in factors that influence pharmacy use type and vaccination likelihood. Further exploration is needed to account for differences between these populations that independently drive vaccination choice. DISCLOSURES: Dr Burbage was a fellow in the Real World Evidence, Population Health and Quality Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in collaboration with University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy and Pharmacy Quality Alliance, and supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time of this study. She is now employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr Parikh is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Campbell was employed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of the study. He is now employed by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Ramachandran has received an unrelated research contract with Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Gatwood has received vaccine-related research grants from Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to this project and consulting fees for a vaccine-related expert panel with Merck & Co. unrelated to this manuscript and is an advisory board member with Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Urick was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the time of this writing and is currently employed by Prime Therapeutics. He has received community pharmacy-related consulting fees from Cardinal Health and Pharmacy Quality Solutions unrelated to this work. Dr Ozawa has a research grant from Merck & Co. unrelated to this project. This project did not receive funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates and predictors among the Egyptian general population and Healthcare workers, the intersectionality of age and other factors

The promise of COVID-19 vaccines in ending the pandemic can only be achieved by overcoming the challenge of vaccine refusal. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are the trusted advisors of vaccination decisions. Recommendations for vaccinating children against COVID-19 are recently gaining more public health attention due to the role of children in disease transmission and associated morbidities. Vaccination is one of the first medical decisions parents or guardians make on behalf of their children. To investigate the determinants associated with vaccine acceptability among the general population through a direct interview questionnaire and assess guardians' views towards childhood COVID-19 vaccinations. This cross-sectional study included 2919 participants A pre-designed structured questionnaire about COVID-19 vaccination acceptability was completed by trained interviewers and interviewing the participants or their guardians (for those below 18 years old). Nearly two-thirds of participants (66.5%) accepted vaccination, 20.2% were refusing and 13.3% were hesitant. Most participants who were guardians of children below 12 years and from 13 to 17 years reported that they would accept vaccination of their children (72.5% and 70.5%, respectively). The acceptance rate among HCWs was 58.2%. The main reasons beyond vaccine refusal were mistrust of vaccine efficacy (39.5%) and having concerns regarding vaccine safety (38.8%). In a multivariable regression model, being male (OR 1.362, 95% CI 1.082-1.714, p = 0.008) resident in rural area (OR 1.796, 95% CI 1.435-2.247, p = 0.000), and lower education (OR 1.245, 95% CI 1.018-1.523, p = 0.033) were associated with an increased acceptance to be vaccinated. The acceptance rate for vaccinating children reported among their guardians was higher than adults for themselves. Extremes of age showed higher vaccine acceptance compared to young adults. Upper Egypt governorates (Faiyum and Giza) were outpacing Lower Egypt governorates in vaccination acceptance rates.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Intent for Vaccination of Adults With Reported Medical Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with certain medical conditions are at substantially increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The purpose of this study is to assess COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. adults with reported medical conditions.

METHODS

Data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during August 1-September 25, 2021 were analyzed in 2022 to assess COVID-19 vaccination status, intent, vaccine confidence, behavior, and experience among adults with reported medical conditions. Unadjusted and age-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and APRs) were generated using logistic regression and predictive marginals.

RESULTS

Overall, COVID-19 vaccination coverage with ≥1 dose was 81.8% among adults with reported medical conditions, and coverage was significantly higher compared with those without such conditions (70.3%) Among adults aged ≥18 years with medical conditions, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was significantly higher among those with a provider recommendation (86.5%) than those without (76.5%). Among all respondents, 9.2% of unvaccinated adults with medical conditions reported they were willing or open to vaccination. Adults who reported high risk medical conditions were more likely to report receiving a provider recommendation, often or always wearing masks during the last 7 days, concerning about getting COVID-19, thinking the vaccine is safe, and believing a COVID-19 vaccine is important for protection from COVID-19 infection than those without such conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 18.0% of those with reported medical conditions were unvaccinated. Receiving a provider recommendation was significantly associated with vaccination, reinforcing that provider recommendation is an important approach to increase vaccination coverage. Ensuring access to vaccine, addressing vaccination barriers, and increasing vaccine confidence can improve vaccination coverage among unvaccinated adults.

Vital Signs: Influenza Hospitalizations and Vaccination Coverage by Race and Ethnicity-United States, 2009-10 Through 2021-22 Influenza Seasons

INTRODUCTION

CDC estimates that influenza resulted in 9-41 million illnesses, 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually during 2010-2020. Persons from some racial and ethnic minority groups have historically experienced higher rates of severe influenza and had lower influenza vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White (White) persons. This report examines influenza hospitalization and vaccination rates by race and ethnicity during a 12-13-year period (through the 2021-22 influenza season).

METHODS

Data from population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in selected states participating in the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) from the 2009-10 through 2021-22 influenza seasons (excluding 2020-21) and influenza vaccination coverage data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2010-11 through 2021-22 influenza seasons were analyzed by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

From 2009-10 through 2021-22, age-adjusted influenza hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 population) were higher among non-Hispanic Black (Black) (rate ratio [RR] = 1.8), American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN; RR = 1.3), and Hispanic (RR = 1.2) adults, compared with the rate among White adults. During the 2021-22 season, influenza vaccination coverage was lower among Hispanic (37.9%), AI/AN (40.9%), Black (42.0%), and other/multiple race (42.6%) adults compared with that among White (53.9%) and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (54.2%) adults; coverage has been consistently higher among White and Asian adults compared with that among Black and Hispanic adults since the 2010-11 season. The disparity in vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity was present among those who reported having medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine medical checkup in the past year.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE

Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza disease severity and influenza vaccination coverage persist. Health care providers should assess patient vaccination status at all medical visits and offer (or provide a referral for) all recommended vaccines. Tailored programmatic efforts to provide influenza vaccination through nontraditional settings, along with national and community-level efforts to improve awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination in preventing illness, hospitalization, and death among racial and ethnic minority communities might help address health care access barriers and improve vaccine confidence, leading to decreases in disparities in influenza vaccination coverage and disease severity.

“I Would Never Push a Vaccine on You”: A Qualitative Study of Social Norms and Pressure in Vaccine Behavior in the U.S

Previous researchers have established the influence of social norms on vaccine behavior. However, little work has been performed contextualizing individuals’ experience with these social factors and how they operate to persuade individuals’ acceptance or refusal of a vaccine. We aimed to determine the mechanisms of familial and societal pressure or expectations that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. We conducted four focus groups and eleven individual interviews (total n = 32) with participants from across the U.S. of different vaccination statuses. We identified three emergent themes: (1) Altruistic reasoning was particularly prevalent among initially hesitant late adopters—the desire to protect loved ones and others constituted a dominant motive, more powerful than protecting oneself. Vaccination was also reckoned as part of a joint effort to return to normal life; hence, it invoked a sense of responsibility or “obligation”; (2) expectation often became pressure; although most vaccinated participants stated that they respected others’ choices, late adopters or unvaccinated participants perceived differently and felt rushed or “forced” into choosing, and many resented being “targeted” or “bullied”; (3) vaccination status became a new label, frequently dividing families, thus producing familial mandates, exclusions, or social stratifications. This caused sadness and feelings of isolation, along with the formation of a camaraderie among the excluded unvaccinated. A vaccine decision builds from the complexities of individuals’ experiences and cultures. The vaccinated were not free of hesitancy nor were the unvaccinated all anti-vaxxers. Vigorous vaccine promotion successfully converted some undecided individuals but also fostered distrust of government; alarmingly, the push to receive the COVID-19 vaccine further triggered doubts about established vaccines. Communication strategies need to be developed and implemented carefully so as not to ostracize the unvaccinated community and strengthen their resistance.

Factors associated with influenza vaccine noncompliance at a Rural Texas University

Objective: To investigate influenza vaccination rates and perceptions underlying vaccine noncompliance. Participants: Participants included undergraduate students (N = 365) at a rural, medium-sized university in Texas. Methods: Students were anonymously surveyed in the spring of 2018 on demographics, insurance status, perceived barriers of influenza vaccination, and vaccination status. Results: Nearly 90% of students had health insurance; however, only 30% of them received the influenza vaccination annually. The top two reasons for non-vaccination were the low perceived threat (20.20%) and having a busy schedule (11.10%). Having health insurance [OR: 2.84, CI: (1.16, 7.0)] and being in the younger age group (18-24) [OR: 1.98, CI: (1.11, 3.54)] were both positively associated with the annual vaccination status. Conclusion: Health education efforts should be focused on vaccination initiatives that increase awareness about the health benefits and ease of access, especially among the older age groups (> =25 years). Information on myths versus facts should also be disseminated.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Promotion Among Healthcare Workers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Even with vaccine mandates, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy remains a concern among healthcare workers, in part due to their role in promoting vaccination among patients and communities. To examine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and promotion among healthcare workers, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of (1) survey responses about COVID-19 vaccination and (2) Twitter messages (i.e., tweets) relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and healthcare. A total of 540 hospital employees completed the survey. Those that completed less than 80% of the survey or did not endorse employment at the hospital were excluded, resulting in a total of 511 valid responses; 93.2% reported receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Approximately 1/3 of vaccinated individuals indicated they posted about receiving the vaccine on social media. Simultaneously, we analyzed a sample of 3845 tweets; 2299 (60%) were relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and 1863 (81%) were coded as authored by an individual. Of tweets authored by an individual, 6% (n = 106) were authored by a healthcare provider/health sciences student. Among relevant tweets, the most frequent code across all sentiment categories was related to the pharmaceutical industry (n = 529 tweets, 28%; n = 33, 31% of tweets authored by healthcare workers). Triangulation of results found themes including vaccine access, trust, and vaccine safety or negative health impacts. Results suggest that promoting the sharing of COVID-19 vaccine personal narratives on social media, combined with interventions targeting specific reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and emphasizing freedom from fear once vaccinated could be effective at reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this population.

Adult Vaccination in the United Arab Emirates—A Physicians' Knowledge and Knowledge Sources Study

Background

A lack of knowledge on adult vaccination has been documented among physicians. They play a critical role in promoting adult vaccines. This study aimed to review the status of adult vaccination in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and evaluate physicians' knowledge and knowledge sources regarding adult vaccines.

Methods

Local, regional, and global adult vaccination guidelines were reviewed. A 40-item questionnaire was used to collect data from physicians from June to October 2020, using convenience and snowball sampling. Knowledge score was calculated, and predictors identified using Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H-tests. Ordinary Least Squares regression was used for Multivariate Analysis.

Results

A total of 500 responses were included. A quarter were internists, and another quarter were family physicians. Fifty-seven percent were medical interns and residents. Both perceived and actual knowledge of adult vaccination were low. Bivariate analysis showed knowledge depending on department, level of training, workplace, and perceived knowledge. All remained significant after multivariable regression except workplace. International and local guidelines were the most common knowledge sources. Forty-two percent were unable to access the local guidelines.

Conclusions

Physicians' knowledge was poor and local guidelines were not clear or easily accessible. Participants were highly receptive to guidance and practice with adult vaccines.

Using Behavioral Science to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Cancer Survivors: Communication Strategies and Research Opportunities

Due to cancer survivors’ increased vulnerability to complications from COVID-19, addressing vaccine hesitancy and improving vaccine uptake among this population is a public health priority. However, several factors may complicate efforts to increase vaccine confidence in this population, including the underrepresentation of cancer patients in COVID-19 vaccine trials and distinct recommendations for vaccine administration and timing for certain subgroups of survivors. Evidence suggests vaccine communication efforts targeting survivors could benefit from strategies that consider factors such as social norms, risk perceptions, and trust. However, additional behavioral research is needed to help the clinical and public health community better understand, and more effectively respond to, drivers of vaccine hesitancy among survivors and ensure optimal protection against COVID-19 for this at-risk population. Knowledge generated by this research could also have an impact beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic by informing future vaccination efforts and communication with cancer survivors more broadly.

Assessing influenza vaccination coverage and predictors in persons living with HIV/AIDS in Louisiana, June 2002-June 2013

Background

Despite the burden of disease and increased risk of influenza-associated morbidity and mortality among PLWHA, influenza vaccination has been understudied in this population.

Methods

We built an 11-year cohort of HIV-infected adults from medical records of PLWHA seeking care within the Louisiana State University medical system from June 2002-June 2013. Influenza vaccination uptake among PLWHA was calculated overall and for each medical facility for each influenza season. Linear regression was used to assess influenza vaccination uptake over time, both overall and by facility. Data were restricted to the final influenza season (2012-13) to assess predictors of PLWHA vaccination. Individuals were nested within medical facilities in order to assess the amount of variability in influenza vaccination rates across medical facilities.

Results

Influenza vaccination uptake among PLWHA increased over the study period (p < 0.01). The overall proportion of PLWHA vaccinated during the 2012-13 influenza season was 33.7%. 37.9% of the variability in the model occurred at the facility-level.

Conclusions

Although there was an increase in influenza vaccination within the PLWHA cohort over the course of the study, vaccination rates remained low overall. Special efforts must be made to increase vaccination uptake among PLWHA, with particular focus on those within the population who are likely to be at highest risk. The substantial variability at the facility-level indicates that there are unmeasured facility-level factors that contribute significantly to PLWHA vaccination.

Influenza Vaccine Uptake and Missed Opportunities Among the Medicare-Covered Population With High-Risk Conditions During the 2018 to 2019 Influenza Season : A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality among older U.S. adults and those with comorbid health conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe seasonal influenza vaccine uptake and identify factors associated with missed opportunities for influenza vaccination.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Medicare fee-for-service claims.

PARTICIPANTS

31.6 million U.S. adults continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A and B during the 2018 to 2019 influenza season.

MEASUREMENTS

Influenza vaccine uptake and missed opportunities by patient demographic characteristics, high-risk status (that is, ≥1 condition increasing influenza complication risk), Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibility status, and health care provider visits (that is, vaccination opportunities).

RESULTS

Overall, 50.5% of beneficiaries aged 19 years or older had Medicare claims for influenza vaccination: 31.6% among people aged 19 to 64 years and 54% among people aged 65 years or older. More White beneficiaries were vaccinated (52.9%) than Black (34.9%) or Hispanic (30.4%) beneficiaries. Uptake was higher (56.1%) for beneficiaries with high-risk conditions than for those without (27.6%). Among unvaccinated beneficiaries overall, 77.4% visited a provider during influenza season; among unvaccinated beneficiaries with and without high-risk conditions, 91% and 43%, respectively, had seen a provider at least once. The proportion of beneficiaries with missed opportunities for influenza vaccination was 44.2% and was higher for beneficiaries in the non-high-risk group (59.1%) than those in the high-risk group (42.2%). Uptake was lower and proportions of missed opportunities were higher among beneficiaries in younger age groups, of Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity, without high-risk conditions, or with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility.

LIMITATIONS

Influenza vaccinations without claims could not be captured. Data on reasons for nonvaccination were unavailable.

CONCLUSION

Influenza vaccination coverage for Medicare beneficiaries continues to be suboptimal, with missed opportunities despite availability of influenza vaccination with no copayment. Disparities persist in vaccination uptake by race/ethnicity.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Identification of optimum combinations of media channels for approaching COVID-19 vaccine unsure and unwilling groups in Japan

Background

Optimizing media campaigns for those who were unsure or unwilling to take coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines is required urgently to effectively present public health messages aimed at increasing vaccination coverage. We propose a novel framework for selecting tailor-made media channels and their combinations for this task.

Methods

An online survey was conducted in Japan during February to March, 2021, with 30,053 participants. In addition to their sociodemographic characteristics, it asked the attitude toward vaccination and information sources (i.e., media channels) for COVID-19 issues. Multinomial logic regression was fitted to estimate the combinations of the media channels and their odds ratio (OR) associated with vaccination attitudes.

Findings

The proportion of respondents who were unsure or unwilling to take the vaccination was skewed toward younger generation: 58.1% were aged under 35, while 28.1% were 65 years or older. Media channels such as “Non-medical and Non-TV” and “Non-medical and Non-government” were associated with the unsure group: OR (95% Confidence intervals, (CI)) = 1.75 (1.62, 1.89) and 1.53 (1.44, 1.62), respectively. In addition, media channels such as “Newspapers or the Novel Coronavirus Expert Meeting”, “Medical or Local government”, and “Non-TV” were associated with the unwilling group: OR (95% CI) were 2.00 (1.47, 2.75), 3.13 (2.58, 3.81), and 2.25 (1.84, 2.77), respectively.

Interpretation

To effectively approach COVID-19 vaccine unsure and unwilling groups, generation-specific online and offline media campaigns should be optimized to the type of vaccine attitude.

Funding

Funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (H29-Gantaisaku-ippan-009) and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (JP20fk0108535).