People's perspectives about COVID-19 vaccination certificate: Findings from a representative Italian sample

The effectiveness of coercive measures in motivating vaccination: Evidence from China during the COVID-19 pandemic

Governments worldwide have implemented mandates, restrictions, and other coercive measures to secure adequate vaccine coverage, with the COVID-19 pandemic providing numerous examples. While the ethics and public reception of such measures are matters of heated discussion, their effectiveness in motivating individuals to get vaccinated remains incompletely understood. This study addresses that gap by analyzing data from a 2022 nationwide online survey conducted in China. Respondents recruited through proportional quota sampling to reflect key demographic characteristics of the population were asked to specify their COVID-19 vaccination status and the reason behind their decision. Results reveal that while most respondents reported getting vaccinated voluntarily, 14.6% attributed their vaccination to the government's coercive mobilisation efforts. Moreover, members of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, as well as individuals favouring Western vaccines unavailable in China, were more likely to cite coercive mobilisation as the reason for their vaccination. These findings suggest that coercive measures can motivate a substantial proportion of the population to get vaccinated, especially those closely connected to the political system and those with unmet vaccination preferences. Given the controversy surrounding such measures, this enhanced understanding of their effectiveness could help with formulating targeted policies to combat infectious diseases and safeguard public health.

From speculative to real: community attitudes towards government COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Western Australia from May 2021 to April 2022

Many governments employed mandates for COVID-19 vaccines, imposing consequences upon unvaccinated people. Attitudes towards these policies have generally been positive, but little is known about how discourses around them changed as the characteristics of the disease and the vaccinations evolved. Western Australia (WA) employed sweeping COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employment and public spaces whilst the state was closed off from the rest of the country and world, and mostly with no COVID-19 in the community. This article analyses WA public attitudes during the mandate policy lifecycle from speculative to real. Qualitative interview data from 151 adults were analysed in NVivo 20 via a novel chronological analysis anchored in key policy phases: no vaccine mandates, key worker vaccine mandates, vaccine mandates covering 75% of the workforce and public space mandates. Participants justified mandates as essential for border reopening and, less frequently, for goals such as protecting the health system. However, public discourse focusing on 'getting coverage rates up' may prove counter-productive for building support for vaccination; governments should reinforce end goals in public messaging (reducing suffering and saving lives) because such messaging is likely to be more meaningful to vaccination behaviour in the longer term.

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? The interplay between pro- and against- vaccination reasons

BACKGROUND

By mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence.

METHODS

Through an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine.

RESULTS

High emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.

The Interplay of Perceived Risks and Benefits in Deciding to Become Vaccinated against COVID-19 While Pregnant or Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy

The present study examined the role of the perception of risks and benefits for the mother and her babies in deciding about the COVID-19 vaccination. In this cross-sectional study, five hypotheses were tested using data from a convenience sample of Italian pregnant and/or breastfeeding women (N = 1104, July-September 2021). A logistic regression model estimated the influence of the predictors on the reported behavior, and a beta regression model was used to evaluate which factors influenced the willingness to become vaccinated among unvaccinated women. The COVID-19 vaccination overall risks/benefits tradeoff was highly predictive of both behavior and intention. Ceteris paribus, an increase in the perception of risks for the baby weighed more against vaccination than a similar increase in the perception of risks for the mother. Additionally, pregnant women resulted in being less likely (or willing) to be vaccinated in their status than breastfeeding women, but they were equally accepting of vaccination if they were not pregnant. COVID-19 risk perception predicted intention to become vaccinated, but not behavior. In conclusion, the overall risks/benefits tradeoff is key in predicting vaccination behavior and intention, but the concerns for the baby weigh more than those for the mother in the decision, shedding light on this previously neglected aspect.

Consolidating a research agenda for vaccine mandates

A workshop on mandatory vaccination was pitched to the World Public Health Congress in 2019 and the resultant special issue was pitched to Vaccine in 2020. During this project, the COVID-19 pandemic pushed vaccine policy to the forefront of global public health policy, and the imposition of vaccine mandates prompted a new wave of scholarship in the field. This introductory article employs the heuristic of Lasswell's (1956) policy cycle to synthesise the findings of the articles in the special issue. It considers the temporal lifetime of mandates and highlights findings regarding: the emergence of mandates as a policy option, public support and policy instrument design, what matters in the implementation of mandates, and what we can learn from evaluating them. The second half of the paper categorizes the included papers in terms of what aspects of mandates they study and the methods they employ to do so, in order to formulate a guide for future researchers of vaccine mandates. Scholars study either speculative or existing mandates - research can address several stages of the policy cycle or just one of them, ranging from attitudinal research to implementation studies and impact studies. Historical and contextual studies that take deep dives into a particular mandate are a much needed resource for studying emerging mandates, too, and scoping and framework- building work will undoubtedly be valuable in understanding and appreciating the wealth of knowledge production in this growing field. This special issue can serve as a roadmap for a consolidation of this interdisciplinary research agenda, and provide a helpful resource for decisionmakers at this historical juncture.

Public Perceptions of Harms and Benefit of COVID-19 Immunity Certificate: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Italian Setting

A cross-sectional survey between 29 January 2022 and 3 February 2022 was conducted to understand the public rationale for accepting or rejecting the use of COVID-19 immunity certificates and to identify the psychosocial factors that mostly predict the positive/negative individuals' perceptions of this measure. One thousand twenty-two Italian adults were recruited by a professional panel provider by employing a stratified sampling strategy controlled for gender, age, geographical area of residence, size of the urban centre of residence, employment, and wage. Eight Welch's ANOVAs were then carried out to compare the perception of benefits and the perception of harms among different population groups. Multiple linear regression was carried out to measure the explained variance of benefits perception and harms perception by age, trust in institutions, and concern for health emergencies. The results shows that age, trust in institution, and concern for the COVID-19 emergency explain more variance of perceived benefits than of perceived harms of COVID-19 immunity certificates but the opposite regarding political orientation which explains perceived harms better than perceived benefits. The need for policy improvements is pressing because a large share of the world's population remains unvaccinated. Moreover, our results can serve as vital information for similar health crises that may occur in the future. In addition, our results are expected to offer useful insights into public feelings around the use of digital health information tools.