1
|
Isonne C, Petrone D, Del Manso M, Iera J, Caramia A, Bandini L, Fadda G, Grossi A, Baccolini V, Costantino C, Pezzotti P, Siddu A, D'Ancona F. The Impact of Rotavirus Vaccination on Discharges for Pediatric Gastroenteritis in Italy: An Eleven Year (2009-2019) Nationwide Analysis. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:1037. [PMID: 37376427 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11061037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
In Italy, despite the documented positive effects of rotavirus (RV) vaccination on reducing the burden of RV disease, an updated national assessment of its impact on clinical outcomes is still lacking. This study aims to analyze the implementation of RV vaccination in Italy, evaluating its impact on discharges for acute pediatric gastroenteritis (AGE). A retrospective analysis, including hospital discharge records and data on vaccination coverage for children aged 0-71 months from 2009 to 2019, was conducted. We examined trends in hospital discharge standardized incidence before and after vaccine introduction using a negative binomial mixture model with fixed effects to evaluate the impact of universal vaccination. The percentage of vaccination coverage increased over the years, from <5% between 2009 and 2013 to 26% in 2017, reaching 70% in 2019. The standardized incidence of discharges decreased over the period from 16.6/100,000 inhabitants in 2009-2013 to 9.9/100,000 inhabitants in 2018-2019. In this phase, about 15% of the estimated hospital discharges were avoided compared with those estimated in the first phase. The implementation of RV vaccination reduced AGE incidence discharges in children aged 0-71 months. Further efforts are needed to continue monitoring the vaccination effect over time and to increase vaccination coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Isonne
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Daniele Petrone
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
- Department of Statistics, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Martina Del Manso
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| | - Jessica Iera
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
- Management and Health Laboratory, Institute of Management-Department EMbeDS, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Alessandra Caramia
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
- Policlinico Riuniti Foggia Hospital, Hygiene Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Bandini
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| | - Giulia Fadda
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| | - Adriano Grossi
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| | - Valentina Baccolini
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Claudio Costantino
- Department of Health Promotion Sciences, Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Excellence Specialties "G. D'Alessandro", University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Patrizio Pezzotti
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| | - Andrea Siddu
- Ministry of Health, Directorate General Health Prevention, Communicable Diseases and International Prophylaxis, 00144 Rome, Italy
| | - Fortunato D'Ancona
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Limaye RJ, Singh P, Paul A, Fesshaye B, Lee C, Zavala E, Wade S, Ali H, Rahman H, Akter S, Karron R, Jahan Siddiqua T. COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among pregnant and lactating women in Bangladesh. Vaccine 2023:S0264-410X(23)00551-0. [PMID: 37208208 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Revised: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Pregnant and lactating women's vaccine decision-making process is influenced by many factors. Pregnant women were at increased risk for severe disease and poor health outcomes from COVID-19 at various time points during the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be safe and protective during pregnancy and while breastfeeding. In this study, we sought to examine key factors that informed the decision-making process among pregnant and lactating women in Bangladesh. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews, with 12 pregnant and 12 lactating women. These women were from three communities in Bangladesh: one urban community, and two rural communities. We used a grounded theory approach to identify emerging themes and organized emerging themes using a socio-ecological model. The socio-ecological model suggests that individuals are influenced by many levels, including individual-level influences, interpersonal-level influences, health care system-level influences, and policy-level influences. We found key factors at each socio-ecological level that influenced the decision-making process of pregnant and lactating women, including perceived benefits of vaccines and vaccine safety (individual-level), the influence of husbands and peers (interpersonal-level), health care provider recommendations and vaccine eligibility (health care system-level), and vaccine mandates (policy-level). As vaccination can reduce the effect of COVID-19 disease in mothers, infants, and unborn children, targeting critical factors that inform the decision-making process is paramount for improving vaccine acceptance. We hope the results of this study will inform vaccine acceptance efforts to ensure that pregnant and lactating women take advantage of this life-saving intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rupali J Limaye
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Prachi Singh
- International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Alicia Paul
- International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Berhaun Fesshaye
- International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Clarice Lee
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Eleonor Zavala
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Sydney Wade
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Hasmot Ali
- JiVitA Project, Johns Hopkins University, Rangpur, Bangladesh
| | - Hafizur Rahman
- JiVitA Project, Johns Hopkins University, Rangpur, Bangladesh
| | - Shirina Akter
- JiVitA Project, Johns Hopkins University, Rangpur, Bangladesh
| | - Ruth Karron
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
The effect of vaccine mandate announcements on vaccine uptake in Canada: An interrupted time series analysis. Vaccine 2023; 41:2932-2940. [PMID: 37019696 PMCID: PMC10068515 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2022] [Revised: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023]
Abstract
Introduction In 2021, the ten provinces in Canada enacted COVID-19 vaccine mandates that restricted access to non-essential businesses and services to those that could provide proof of full vaccination to decrease the risk of transmission and provide an incentive for vaccination. This analysis aims to examine the effects of vaccine mandate announcements on vaccine uptake over time by age group and province. Methods Aggregated data from the Canadian COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Surveillance System (CCVCSS) were used to measure vaccine uptake (defined as the weekly proportion of individuals who received at least one dose) among those 12 years and older following the announcement of vaccination requirements. We performed an interrupted time series analysis using a quasi-binomial autoregressive model adjusted for the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to model the effect of mandate announcements on vaccine uptake. Additionally, counterfactuals were produced for each province and age group to estimate vaccine uptake without mandate implementation. Results The times series models demonstrated significant increases in vaccine uptake following mandate announcement in BC, AB, SK, MB, NS, and NL. No trends in the effect of mandate announcements were observed by age group. In AB and SK, counterfactual analysis showed that announcement were followed by 8 % and 7 % (310,890 and 71,711 people, respectively) increases in vaccination coverage over the following 10 weeks. In MB, NS, and NL, there was at least a 5 % (63,936, 44,054, and 29,814 people, respectively) increase in coverage. Lastly, BC announcements were followed by a 4 % (203,300 people) increase in coverage. Conclusion Vaccine mandate announcements could have increased vaccine uptake. However, it is difficult to interpret this effect within the larger epidemiological context. Effectiveness of the mandates can be affected by pre-existing levels of uptake, hesitancy, timing of announcements and local COVID-19 activity.
Collapse
|
4
|
Sciurti A, Baccolini V, Renzi E, De Blasiis MR, Siena LM, Isonne C, Migliara G, Massimi A, De Vito C, Marzuillo C, Villari P. Attitudes of University Students towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Rome, Italy. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:vaccines11040721. [PMID: 37112633 PMCID: PMC10141490 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11040721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 03/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Mandatory vaccination (MV) against COVID-19 is a contentious topic. In this study, we used logistic regression models to identify attitudes among Sapienza University students towards MV for COVID-19. We considered three different scenarios: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (MCV) for healthcare workers (HCWs) (Model 1), for all people aged ≥ 12 years (Model 2), and for admission to schools and universities (Model 3). We collected 5287 questionnaires over a six-month period and divided these into three groups (September-October 2021, November-December 2021, and January-February 2022). MCV for HCWs was the most strongly supported policy (69.8% in favour), followed by MCV for admission to schools and universities (58.3%), and MCV for the general population (54.6%). In a multivariable analysis, the models showed both similarities and differences. There was no association of socio-demographic characteristics with the outcomes, apart from being enrolled in non-healthcare courses, which negatively affected Models 2 and 3. A greater COVID-19 risk perception was generally associated with a more positive attitude towards MCV, although heterogeneously across models. Vaccination status was a predictor of being in favour of MCV for HCWs, whereas being surveyed in November-February 2022 favoured MCV for admission to schools and universities. Attitudes towards MCV were variable across policies; thus, to avoid unintended consequences, these aspects should be carefully considered by policymakers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Sciurti
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Valentina Baccolini
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Erika Renzi
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Maria Roberta De Blasiis
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Leonardo Maria Siena
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Claudia Isonne
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Migliara
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Azzurra Massimi
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Corrado De Vito
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Carolina Marzuillo
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Villari
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Driving Paediatric Vaccine Recovery in Europe. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:vaccines11010184. [PMID: 36680028 PMCID: PMC9865973 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11010184] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 01/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Childhood vaccination coverage has increased throughout Europe in recent decades. However, challenges persist in many areas within the European Union (EU), resulting in declining coverage rates in many countries in the period between 2010 and 2021. This general trend requires increased efforts to combat barriers around vaccination uptake. Thus, this article aims to summarise key learnings and trends in paediatric vaccination within the EU, with a focus on current challenges and enablers. METHODS Methodology is based on analysis of primary data, mainly vaccination coverage rates, as well as review and analysis of the select relevant literature, including peer-reviewed articles, academic research papers, official reports, policies, and other publicly available sources. RESULTS For all vaccines assessed (DTP 1st dose, DTP 3rd dose, Hib3, HepB3, measles 1st dose, measles 2nd dose, and polio 3rd dose), a high degree of variation and fluctuation in coverage can be observed. There is a general trend of declining coverage in 2019 compared to 2010, with lower performing countries, such as Romania and Austria, showing increasingly severe coverage fluctuations between the years examined across the analysed vaccines. CONCLUSIONS Evidence suggests that increasing both accessibility and information regarding vaccines are key enablers to vaccination uptake. Moreover, given the current challenges the EU is facing, crisis preparedness plans are pertinent to ensure immunity gaps do not further exacerbate the disruption of vaccination systems.
Collapse
|
6
|
Siena LM, Isonne C, Sciurti A, De Blasiis MR, Migliara G, Marzuillo C, De Vito C, Villari P, Baccolini V. The Association of Health Literacy with Intention to Vaccinate and Vaccination Status: A Systematic Review. Vaccines (Basel) 2022; 10:1832. [PMID: 36366341 PMCID: PMC9692286 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10111832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Revised: 10/23/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite health literacy (HL) being recognized as a driver of health-promoting behavior, its influence on the vaccination decision-making process remains unclear. This study summarized current evidence on the association between HL and both intention to vaccinate and vaccination status. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, retrieving observational studies published until January 2022 that used HL-validated tools to investigate the above associations for any vaccine. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Twenty-one articles were included; of these, six investigated the intention to vaccinate and the remainder vaccination status. Articles on intention looked at SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using heterogeneous HL tools and were of high/fair quality. Vaccination status, mainly for influenza or pneumococcal vaccines, was explored using various HL tools; the quality was generally high. We found inconsistent results across and within vaccine types, with no clear conclusion for either vaccination intention or status. A weak but positive association was reported between a high HL level and influenza vaccination uptake for individuals aged more than 65 years. HL did not seem to significantly influence behavior towards vaccination. Differences in the methods used might explain these results. Further research is needed to investigate the role of HL in the vaccination decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Claudia Isonne
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Renzi E, Baccolini V, Migliara G, Bellotta C, Ceparano M, Donia P, Marzuillo C, De Vito C, Villari P, Massimi A. Mapping the Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance at the Global and Regional Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines (Basel) 2022; 10:1488. [PMID: 36146566 PMCID: PMC9506365 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10091488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Revised: 08/29/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the availability of effective and safe vaccines, the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination is suboptimal. In this meta-analysis we quantified the prevalence estimates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance with a specific focus on worldwide geographical differences. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycInfo up to April 2021 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021235328). Generalized random-effects linear models with a logit link were used to calculate the pooled estimated rate of vaccine acceptance at both the global and regional level. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and various characteristics of the studies. Overall, 71 articles yielding 128 prevalence estimates were included. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate was 66% (95% CI: 61-71%). This varied by geographic area, ranging from 36% (95% CI: 18-60%) in Africa to 83% (95% CI: 82-84%) in Oceania, and there was high variability between countries (15.4% Cameroon-100% Bhutan). Meta-regression analysis showed that studies that investigated COVID-19 vaccination intentions using multiple choice/scoring gave a vaccine acceptance prevalence lower than studies with only two possible answers (yes/no) (ß: -1.02 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.63). Despite some variation in the estimates, the results showed that one in three people may refuse/delay COVID-19 vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erika Renzi
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Valentina Baccolini
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Migliara
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Ciro Bellotta
- National Hospital A.O.R.N. “Antonio Cardarelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy
| | - Mariateresa Ceparano
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Pierluigi Donia
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Carolina Marzuillo
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Corrado De Vito
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Villari
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Azzurra Massimi
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bianchi FP, Stefanizzi P, Di Gioia MC, Brescia N, Lattanzio S, Tafuri S. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in pregnant and breastfeeding women and strategies to increase vaccination compliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Vaccines 2022; 21:1443-1454. [PMID: 35818804 DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2100766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pregnant and breastfeeding women are at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Despite this, low vaccination coverages are reported in this population sub-group. AREAS COVERED The purpose of this study is to estimate the proportion of pregnant and breastfeeding women expressing hesitation to the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and February 6, 2022. The vaccine hesitation rate among pregnant and breastfeeding women was 48.4% (95%CI= 43.4-53.4%). In a sub analysis by study period, it was 40.0% (95%CI=31.6-46.6%) considering surveys administered in 2020, 58.0% (95%CI=48.9-66.9%) considering surveys administered in the first semester of 2021, and 38.1% (95%CI=25.9-51.2%) considering surveys administered in the second semester of 2021. The main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events. EXPERT OPINION Available evidence in the literature has shown that fighting vaccine resistance is harsh and too slow as a process, considering the rapidity and unpredictability of a pandemic. Health education should be provided in order to improve the willingness of the community, especially for those with lower levels of education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Nazario Brescia
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Sabrina Lattanzio
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Silvio Tafuri
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bianchi FP, Stefanizzi P, Brescia N, Lattanzio S, Martinelli A, Tafuri S. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Vaccines 2022; 21:1289-1300. [PMID: 35757890 DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2093723] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs). AREAS COVERED To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and January 25, 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI=12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI=3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events. EXPERT OPINION Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Pasquale Stefanizzi
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Nazario Brescia
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Sabrina Lattanzio
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Andrea Martinelli
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| | - Silvio Tafuri
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Italian University Students: A Cross-Sectional Survey during the First Months of the Vaccination Campaign. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:vaccines9111292. [PMID: 34835223 PMCID: PMC8625887 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9111292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2021] [Revised: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 11/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April-May, and May-June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April-May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students' awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.
Collapse
|