What are the reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine? A qualitative analysis of social media in Germany

Health Decisions Under Uncertainty: The Roles of Conspiracy Beliefs and Institutional Trust

Research on vaccination hesitancy has been extensive, but the role of information processing in decision making still needs to be explored. The study examines the alignment between parents' COVID-19 vaccination intentions and actual behavior, focusing on the impact of different kinds of information processing on the consistency or inconsistency of these behaviors. It analyzes parents' reliance on health information sources, and education levels, with institutional trust, ability to critically evaluate conspiracy theories and scientific knowledge as moderators. A total of 1118 Israeli parents participated in digital surveys and were classified into the following 4 groups based on their initial vaccination intentions and actual behaviors: (1) consistent-pro-vaccine and vaccinated; (2) inconsistent-pro-vaccine but unvaccinated; (3) inconsistent-anti-vaccine but vaccinated; and (4) consistent-anti-vaccine and unvaccinated). The results show that consistent parents process information using system 1, i.e., heuristic information processing, reliance on health information sources, moderated by institutional trust and education. However, inconsistent parents used systems 1 and 2, namely heuristic-systematic information processing, influenced by knowledge of COVID-19 and the ability to assess conspiracy theories critically.

[Hesitancy and Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccine Among Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Portuguese Hospital]

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy is recognized by the World Health Organization as a major global health threat. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this issue has taken on unique dimensions. Healthcare professionals are considered one of the most reliable sources of information regarding vaccination. Their stance on immunization is a determining factor in their likelihood to recommend it to others, with potential repercussions for vaccination uptake rates in the general population. This study aimed to characterize the sociodemographic profile of healthcare professionals at a Portuguese tertiary hospital who declined COVID-19 vaccination and to analyze the reasons for hesitancy/refusal and future vaccination intentions.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2021, targeting healthcare professionals eligible for the completion of the primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Those who refused vaccination were asked to complete the "COVID-19 Non-Vaccination Questionnaire", which included a multiplechoice question and an open response field regarding reasons for hesitancy/refusal and future vaccination intentions. Variables analyzed included gender, age, and professional category.

RESULTS

Among the 6648 healthcare professionals in the sample, 2.3% (n = 153) declined to complete the vaccination schedule. The average age was 46 years (SD = 11), with the proportion in each age group being 1.2% aged ≤ 35 years, 2.5% aged 36 - 45 years, and 3.1% aged > 45 years. The vaccine refusal rate among all professionals of each gender was 2.3% for females and 2.4% for males. A higher proportion of refusals was observed among healthcare assistants (n = 53, 4.0%) and technical assistants (n = 13, 3.0%). Sixteen reasons for vaccine hesitancy/refusal were identified, with the most frequently reported being fear of adverse reactions (n = 31), insufficient research on vaccines (n = 22), and distrust in vaccine efficacy (n = 25). Only 28.1% (n = 43) expressed an intention to be vaccinated in the future.

CONCLUSION

A high acceptance rate for the primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule was observed. The likelihood of vaccine refusal was similar between genders but higher among individuals over 45 years and operational support staff. The reasons for vaccine refusal that implied concerns about the vaccine's safety stood out. Further studies are needed to better understand the dynamics underlying vaccine hesitancy/refusal.

Modifiable risk factors of vaccine hesitancy: insights from a mixed methods multiple population study combining machine learning and thematic analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy, the delay in acceptance or reluctance to vaccinate, ranks among the top threats to global health. Identifying modifiable factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy is crucial for developing targeted interventions to increase vaccination uptake.

METHODS

This mixed-methods multiple population study utilized gradient boosting machines and thematic analysis to identify modifiable predictors of vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were investigated in 2926 Norwegian adults (Mage = 37.91, 79.69% female), before the predictive utility of these variables was investigated in an independent sample of 734 adults in the UK (Mage = 40.34, 57.08% female). Two independent teams of authors conducted the machine learning and thematic analyses, blind to each other's analytic procedures and results.

RESULTS

The machine learning model performed well in discerning vaccine hesitant (n = 248, 8.48% and n = 109, 14.85%, Norway and UK, respectively) from vaccine uptaking individuals (n = 2678, 91.52% and n = 625, 85.15%), achieving an AUC of 0.94 (AUPRC: 0.72; balanced accuracy: 86%; sensitivity = 0.81; specificity = 0.98) in the Norwegian sample, and an AUC of 0.98 (AUPRC: 0.89; balanced accuracy: 89%; sensitivity = 0.83; specificity = 0.97) in the out-of-sample replication in the UK. The mixed methods investigation identified five categories of modifiable risk tied to vaccine hesitancy, including illusion of invulnerability, doubts about vaccine efficacy, mistrust in official entities, minimization of the societal impact of COVID-19, and health-related fears tied to vaccination. The portrayal of rare incidents across alternative media platforms as fear amplifiers, and the mainstream media's stigmatizing presentation of unvaccinated individuals, were provided as additional motives underlying vaccine reluctance and polarization. The thematic analysis further revealed information overload, fear of needles, previous negative vaccination experiences, fear of not getting healthcare follow-up after vaccination if needed, and vaccine aversion due to underlying (psychiatric) illness (e.g., eating disorders) as motives underlying vaccine hesitance.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified influential predictors were consistent across two European samples, highlighting their generalizability across European populations. These predictors offer insights about modifiable factors that could be adapted by public health campaigns in mitigating misconceptions and fears related to vaccination toward increasing vaccine uptake. Moreover, the results highlight the media's responsibility, as mediators of the public perception of vaccines, to minimize polarization and provide accurate portrayals of rare vaccine-related incidents, reducing the risk aggravating fear and reactance to vaccination.

Evaluation of Douyin Short Videos on Mammography in China: Quality and Reliability Analysis

Background

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor and the fifth leading cause of cancer death worldwide, imposing a significant disease burden in China. Mammography is a key method for breast cancer screening, particularly for early diagnosis. Douyin, a popular social media platform, is increasingly used for sharing health information, but the quality and reliability of mammography-related videos remain unexamined.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the information quality and reliability of mammography videos on Douyin.

Methods

In October 2023, a search using the Chinese keywords for "mammography" and "mammography screening" was conducted on Douyin. From 200 retrieved videos, 136 mammography-related videos were selected for analysis. Basic video information, content, and sources were extracted. Video content was assessed for comprehensiveness across 7 categories: conception, examination process, applicable objects, precautions, combined examinations, advantages, and report. Completeness was evaluated using a researcher-developed checklist, while reliability and quality were measured using 2 modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Correlations between video quality and characteristics were also examined.

Results

Among the video sources, 82.4% (112/136) were attributed to health professionals, and 17.6% (24/136) were attributed to nonprofessionals. Among health professionals, only 1 was a radiologist. Overall, 77.2% (105/136) of the videos had useful information about mammography. Among the useful videos, the advantages of mammography were the most frequently covered topic (53/105, 50.5%). Median values for the mDISCERN and GQS evaluations across all videos stood at 2.5 (IQR 1.63-3) and 2 (IQR 1-2), respectively. Within the subgroup assessment, the median mDISCERN score among the useful and professional groups stood at 2 (IQR 2-3) and 3 (IQR 2-3), respectively, surpassing the corresponding score for the unhelpful and nonprofessional groups at 0 (IQR 0-0) and 0 (IQR 0-0.75; P<.001). Likewise, the median GQS among the useful and professional groups was evaluated at 2 (IQR 1.5-2) and 2 (IQR 1-2), respectively, eclipsing that of the unhelpful and nonprofessional groups at 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 (IQR 1-1.37; P<.001). The GQS was weak and negatively correlated with the number of likes (r=-0.24; P=.004), comments (r=-0.29; P<.001), and saves (r=-0.20; P=.02). The mDISCERN score was weak and negatively correlated with the number of likes (r=-0.26; P=.002), comments (r=-0.36; P<.001), saves (r=-0.22; P=.009), and shares (r=-0.18; P=.03).

Conclusions

The overall quality of mammography videos on Douyin is suboptimal, with most content uploaded by clinicians rather than radiologists. Radiologists should be encouraged to create accurate and informative videos to better educate patients. As Douyin grows as a health information platform, stricter publishing standards are needed to enhance the quality of medical content.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy and Acceptance among the Indian Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

The disastrous impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic worldwide necessitated the prompt development of vaccines to combat the situation; however, vaccination drives have been challenged by vaccine hesitancy among several communities across geographies. Understanding vaccine hesitancy and acceptance can help design appropriate vaccination strategies. With this background, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the prevalence and assess the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among the Indian population.

Methods

This systematic review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The data were extracted from May 1, 2024, to May 30, 2024, using PubMed, Scopus, and DOAJ search engines. The keywords used in the search string are "COVID-19," "vaccine hesitancy," "vaccine acceptance," and "India." Finally, 26 articles were selected, and the included articles underwent a quality assessment with the help of the JBI-Checklist for cross-sectional studies. The pooled vaccine hesitancy and acceptance prevalence was estimated at a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effect model assuming potential heterogeneity. Analysis used Stata Now 18 SE (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Of the 26 studies, 14 studies were conducted among healthcare workers, seven studies among the general population, two studies among pregnant women and one each among school children, parents, and socioeconomically disadvantaged people. The reported highest vaccine acceptance was 92.74% and 86.3%, and hesitancy was 60.8% and 50% among healthcare workers and the general population, respectively. Between the general population and healthcare workers, the estimated pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance is 66.1% (95% CI: 53%-78%) and 65.9% (95% CI: 57%-74%), respectively. The estimated pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy is 33% (95% CI: 20%-46%) among the general population and 24% (95% CI: 11%-40%) among healthcare workers. With the random effect model, high heterogeneity was observed in both acceptance (I 2 >99%) and hesitancy (I 2 >98%).

Conclusion

A significant variation in the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine has been reported across different regions of India. Hence, future research is needed to enable comparability and generalizability, as the variations may also reflect differences in study designs, demographics, and time frames.

What's in a word? Defining "gene therapy medicines"

Gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs) have emerged as a transformative class of medicines. Defining what a certain class of medicines encompasses, and what it does not, is key, with ample implications and consequential regulatory requirements. In April 2023, the European Commission proposed new pharmaceutical legislation safeguarding the public health within the European Union with a new, broader definition of GTMP, including genome editing medicines and nucleic acids of either source, regulating, replacing, or adding a genetic sequence that mediates its effect by transcription or translation. This definition is all-encompassing for any "genetic" intervention and is agnostic to mechanism of action, duration of action, location of action, and associated risk. Here, we take this as a paradigm to discuss how terminology and definitions are more than just words and can have meaningful regulatory, scientific, and public health implications.

Covid-19 vaccination status and beliefs of individuals with co-occurring serious mental illness and alcohol use disorder

Objective

The study objective was to determine factors associated with obtaining COVID-19 vaccination in people with co-occurring alcohol use disorder (AUD) and serious mental illness (SMI).

Methods

Survey responses were obtained from 135 adults with SMI seeking community-based AUD treatment about their primary series vaccination status, COVID-19 preventative practices, vaccination motivators, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and strategies to increase vaccination uptake. Vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were compared. Responses to survey items with nominal or Likert scales were analyzed with chi-square tests of association. Logistic regression was employed to determine predictors of vaccine status.

Results

Seventy-nine percent (n=107) of participants reported they were vaccinated. A higher proportion of vaccinated participants believed COVID-19 was a serious disease. While both groups adopted preventative hygiene practices at similar rates (e.g., washing hands), vaccinated participants engaged in more interpersonal practices directly involving others (e.g., wearing masks and avoiding crowds). The strongest vaccine motivator was protecting personal health, while the primary reason for hesitancy was potential side effects. Most unvaccinated participants endorsed increased safety information availability (61.1 %) and living with a high-risk-for-severe-infection individual (55.6 %) as reasons to overcome hesitancy.

Conclusions

Vaccination rates, motivators, and hesitancy reasons were similar to the general United States population. Strategies to increase vaccination in this high-risk population should include education on vaccine safety and side effects and the impacts of COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses on others.

Engaging Trusted Messengers to Increase COVID-19 Pediatric Vaccine Uptake in Philadelphia: Lessons from the VaxUpPhillyFamilies program

INTRODUCTION

Communities of color had higher rates of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection and lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic. Parental concern about the safety and necessity of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines contribute to low childhood vaccination. Enlisting parents and caregivers as trusted messengers is an evidence-based approach to mitigate this challenge. VaxUpPhillyFamilies was formed to engage parents and caregivers as vaccine ambassadors to increase vaccination rates in children of color. This study aimed to understand the key benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the VaxUpPhillyFamilies program.

METHODS

Three online debriefing sessions with ambassadors were conducted between September 7 and October 24, 2022, to share best practices, address challenges, receive emerging vaccine information, and provide support. Thematic analysis was utilized to develop broad themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Four themes with corresponding subthemes were identified: 1) Motivations to Become an Ambassador: a) improving the health of the community and b) personal satisfaction; 2) Defining Success: a) community interactions and b) influencing opinions; 3) Best Approaches: a) being mentally prepared with facts, b) addressing community health needs beyond COVID-19, c) demonstrating empathy, d) "meeting them where they're at" by motivational interviewing, and e) building trust and connection; 4) Challenges: a) changes in vaccine guidelines, b) vaccine misinformation, c) varied perceptions of severity of COVID-19 illness and benefits of the vaccine, d) breakdown of communication from trusted sources, and e) structural barriers to engagement.

CONCLUSION

Parents and caregivers were a resource for delivering evidence-based messaging about COVID-19 and other health challenges. To effectively equip parents and caregivers as public health ambassadors, it is critical to offer training in engagement strategies, to identify and combat misinformation, and to provide support in navigating challenges. VaxUpPhillyFamilies program is a model for future public health campaigns.

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy Among People with Chronic Diseases in Thailand: Role of Attitudes and Vaccine Literacy Towards Future Implications

Introduction

Vaccination is an important strategy to prevent or reduce hospitalizations and mortality caused by COVID-19 infection. However, some people with chronic diseases are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination and associated factors among people with chronic diseases.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between May and August 2021. A sample of 457 Thai adults living with one or more chronic diseases was drawn from a larger online survey.

Results

Participants were 19 to 89 years old. The three most commonly reported chronic diseases were hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. The acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination was 89.1%. Forty-six percent of respondents had received the COVID-19 vaccination, and 43.1% intended to get the vaccine. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy/refusal included concerns about adverse side effects from the vaccines including long-term effects that might complicate their disease condition. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that having a bachelor's degree or higher [aOR 4.40; 95% CI: 2.12-9.14], being employed [aOR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.03-4.39], and having positive attitudes [aOR 2.36; 95% CI: 1.69-3.29] and negative attitudes [aOR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.27-0.55] predicted acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine literacy was significantly associated with acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in binary logistic regression analyses, but it was not retained in the multiple logistic regression model.

Conclusion

Vaccine literacy and attitudes influence acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in people with chronic diseases.

Understanding the influence of social media on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in a war-torn Syria: A cross-sectional study

Social media has become a source of disseminating information to the public during the COVID-19 outbreak which has been a great advantage for healthcare centers. However, foreign anti-vaccination campaigns on social media increased the disbelief in vaccine safety. To our knowledge, the effects of social media on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are not well-studied in low-income countries. The primary objective of this survey is to investigate Syrians' dependence on social media platforms to get information about vaccines, and to what extent it affects their vaccination decision. A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Syria from May 26th to July 26th, 2022 using an online questionnaire as Google Form posted on various social media platforms. The questionnaire consisted of 53 questions related to each of the socio-demographic characteristics, beliefs, and knowledge about COVID-19 vaccination, willingness to get vaccinated, and social media frequency use and its effects. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with vaccination behavior. A total of 780 questionnaires were completed; around 42.2% of study participants did not get the vaccine, and 24% would take it only under compulsory rules. Also, only 3.08% of the participants answered correctly on the knowledge-evaluation questions. Results of the univariate analysis showed that being female, living in an urban residential area, and having good vaccine knowledge were positive predictors of vaccine receiving. The unvaccinated group had a higher likelihood of being college students, not trusting in the vaccine, knowing relatively less about the vaccine, and not having previously been exposed to the virus. No significant correlation between vaccination status and using social media was shown in our investigation. However, our results show the importance of social media information in health-related decisions in war-torn countries and emphasize further investigations to confirm causality and determine the best health policy choice.

Share If You Believe, Comment If You Doubt: The Effect of Source of Information, Trust, and Belief in Conspiracy Theories on Engagement with Facebook Posts

This study examines the effect of one of three sources of information: a politician (authority figure), a physician (expert), and an ordinary person (non-expert) who appeared in a personal story related to a controversial issue (COVID-19 vaccination) on Facebook, on the willingness to engage with it. Using a between-subjects experiment (N = 848) conducted among Israeli adults (18 and older), we found a higher likelihood of sharing the story in interpersonal conversations than in other types of communications, regardless of the source that appeared in the story. However, respondents with high levels of institutional trust preferred sharing a politician's story, while conspiracy believers tended to comment on an ordinary person's story. The findings of the different patterns of communication behavior among conspiracy believers and people with high trust in political institutes contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the spread of misinformation in the digital age and during times of crisis.

[Refusal and hesitation regarding vaccination against COVID-19 in Douala, Cameroon]

Introduction

vaccination is one of the strategies the World Health Organization recommends to reduce the burden of COVID-19. However, many African countries like Cameroon have low COVID-19 vaccination coverage. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons for the refusal of the population of the city of Douala to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Methods

we conducted a cross-sectional and analytical study in Douala from February 10 to May 31, 2022. Participants, aged at least 21 years and residing in the city of Douala, were interviewed. Associations between the variables of interest were measured using Chi-square and Fisher tests, with a 95% confidence interval.

Results

a total of 1555 people were included in the study. Only 168 (11%) had been vaccinated. The proportion of vaccine refusal was high, with 711 (45.7%) refusing, 640 participants (41.1%) hesitating, and 204 people (13.2%) being in favor of COVID-19 vaccination. The main reasons for refusing anti-COVID-19 vaccination were fear of adverse effects (406; 44.8%), lack of information about vaccines (331; 36.5%), and lack of confidence (302; 33.3%). Factors associated with vaccine refusal were religion (p=0.026) and level of education (p=0.002).

Conclusion

this study revealed low COVID-19 vaccination coverage in Douala, with a significant proportion of refusal and hesitation towards vaccination. Communication strategies should take into account the reasons and factors associated with refusal.

Vaccine Refusal and Hesitancy among Iranians Participated in the National COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Survey: A Qualitative Study

Background

Success in COVID-19 vaccination depends on understanding why people refuse or hesitate to take the vaccine. This study aims to explore vaccine refusal and hesitancy among Iranians who participated in the national COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy survey.

Methods

A qualitative content analysis approach was used. Twenty-six participants were selected by purposive sampling. In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted during the year 2022. A directed content analysis approach was used for analyzing the data by extracting the codes, subcategories, and categories.

Results

Four major categories and their respective subcategories related to refusal and/ or hesitancy against COVID-19 vaccination emerged: "lack of confidence" (distrust in policymakers and pharmaceutical companies, distrust in national media, belief in conspiracy theory, and lack of confidence in the vaccine's safety and effectiveness), "complacency" (Fatalism and philosophical beliefs, low perceived risk, and belief in the adequacy of the precautionary principles), "constrains" (personal and psychological barriers), and "coercion" (coercion by relatives and unsteady imposed mandatory vaccination by the government).

Conclusion

Distrust, fatalism, low perceived risk, and overconfidence in traditional Persian medicine were important barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability needing a variety of measures for improving COVID-19 vaccine uptake, including enhancing public trust in government and policymakers, clarifying vaccine safety and effectiveness, dealing with religious fatalism, and regulating anti-science messages on social media.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The unprecedented emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the development and global distribution of vaccines, making the understanding of global vaccine acceptance and hesitancy crucial to overcoming barriers to vaccination and achieving widespread immunization.

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative.

RESULTS

Our inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.59%). Higher acceptance rates were observed among health care workers and individuals with chronic diseases, at 64% (95% CI 0.57%-0.71%) and 69% (95% CI 0.61%-0.76%), respectively. However, lower acceptance was noted among pregnant women, at 48% (95% CI 0.42%-0.53%), and parents consenting for their children, at 61.29% (95% CI 0.56%-0.67%). The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 32% (95% CI 0.25%-0.39%) in the general population. The quality assessment revealed 19 high-quality, 38 moderate-quality, 15 low-quality, and 6 critically low-quality meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023468363; https://tinyurl.com/2p9kv9cr.

Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines, associated factors and reasons for not taking a vaccine: a cross sectional study among persons aged 13-80 years in Wakiso, Central Uganda

BACKGROUND

Vaccination has been recommended as one of the approaches for the control of COVID-19 pandemic. However, adequate vaccine coverage is critical to the effectiveness of the vaccine at population level. Data on acceptability of the vaccine in Ugandan urban areas are limited. This study examined the prevalence, factors associated with willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccine including reasons for not taking COVID-19 vaccine in a predominantly urban population of Wakiso, central Uganda.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a cross-sectional study conducted between March 1st, 2021 and September 30th, 2021 in the urban population-based cohort of the Africa Medical and behavioral Sciences Organization (AMBSO). A Multivariable modified Poisson regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals of willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

A total of 1,903 participants were enrolled in this study; 61% of whom were females. About 63% of participants indicated their willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Persons aged 13-19 years (aPR = 0.79; [95% CI: 0.74, 0.84]) or 20-29years (aPR = 0.93; [95% CI: 0.88, 0.98]) were less likely to accept the vaccine compared to persons aged 40-49 years. Persons with post-primary level of education (aPR = 1.05; [95% CI: 1.02, 1.09]) were more likely to accept the vaccine compared to persons with primary level of education. Additionally, students or individuals working in government (aPR = 1.13; [95% CI: 1.04, 1.23]) were more likely to accept the vaccine compared to individuals doing construction and Mechanic work as their main occupation. Reported reasons for not taking a COVID-19 vaccine included; concerns about side effects of the vaccine 154(57.0%), 64(23.7%) did not think the vaccines were effective, while 32(11.9%) did not like the vaccines.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of individuals were not willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Health education campaigns on vaccination within urban communities could help reduce COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions in the urban populations more especially the young and persons with low levels of formal education.

Ethical implications of developing RNA-based therapies for cardiovascular disorders

The awareness concerning RNA-based therapies was boosted significantly after the successful development of COVID-19 vaccines. However, they can potentially lead to significant advances in other areas of medicine, such as oncology or chronic diseases. In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of RNA-based therapies that were evaluated as potential treatments for cardiovascular disorders. One of the areas that was not explicitly assessed about these therapies is represented by their overall ethical framework. Some studies evaluate ethical issues of RNA-based treatments in general or targeting specific disorders (especially neurodegenerative) or interventions for developing RNA-based vaccines. Much less information is available regarding the ethical issues associated with developing these therapeutic strategies for cardiovascular disorders, which is the main aim of this study. We will focus our analysis on three main topics: risk-benefit analysis (including the management of public awareness about these technologies), and justice (in both research and clinical medicine).

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians: a qualitative study with general practitioners and paediatricians in Austria and Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy (VH) among general practioners (GPs) and paediatricians. We aim to analyse how and when the healthcare workers (HCWs) developed vaccine-hesitant views and how they transfer these to patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Semistructured interviews with vaccine-hesitant GPs and paediatricians were conducted in Austria and Germany using an explorative qualitative research design.

PARTICIPANTS

We contacted 41 physicians through letters and emails and 10 agreed to participate, five were male and five female.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Ten interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The material was analysed inductively following a grounded theory approach with open coding using the software atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Key themes that were identified were education and career path, understanding of medicine and medical profession, experiences with vaccines, doctor-patient interactions and continuous education activities and the link to VH. GPs and paediatricians' vaccine-hesitant attitudes developed during their medical training and, in particular, during extracurricular training in homeopathy, which most of the participants completed. Most participants work in private practices rather than with contracts with social insurance because they are not satisfied with the health system. Furthermore, they are critical of biomedicine. Most of the interview partners do not consider themselves antivaccination, but are sceptical towards vaccines and especially point out the side effects. Most do not vaccinate in their practices and some do only occasionally. Their vaccine-hesitant views are often fostered through respective online communities of vaccine-hesitant HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies on a connection between complementary medicine and vaccine-hesitant views of HCWs are needed. Education about vaccines and infectious diseases among healthworkers must increase especially tailored towards the use of internet and social media. Physicians should be made aware that through time and empathy towards their patients they could have a positive impact on undecided patients and parents regarding vaccine decisions.

The Worrying Phenomenon of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Negative Impact on Pandemic Control Efforts: Common Themes that Emerged in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region

Since the declaration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic, intensive measures were taken to mitigate its negative health, psychological, social, and economic impact. COVID-19 continues to pose serious threats globally, with vaccination as the central safe strategy to control the pandemic. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a major concern, especially in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Concerns regarding vaccine safety, efficacy, and misinformation contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Addressing these concerns and providing accurate information is crucial for increasing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in this region, where the coverage is low. Variable rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were found in the numerous studies conducted in the region. Complex factors contributed to vaccination hesitancy in the region including concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, low trust in healthcare systems, complacency toward the risks of COVID-19, constraints hindering access to COVID-19 vaccination services, as well as the circulation of misinformation and conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and its vaccination. Effective approaches to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the MENA region rely on developing evidence-based communication strategies that are recommended to build trust in vaccination, highlight the disease risks, and counter COVID-19 vaccine-related misinformation. Ensuring COVID-19 vaccine affordability is also necessary besides the cautious consideration of implementing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Based on the preceding discussion, this chapter aims to identify the common themes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the MENA region. In addition, the chapter highlights the importance of understanding the root causes of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and its associated determinants to develop effective strategies for promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in the MENA region. To build community trust, promote community education and awareness, and counter misinformation for better COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the region, it is recommended to involve healthcare professionals and policymakers.

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations ('claims') detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms 'physical distancing' and 'social distancing'. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

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.

Lessons Learned from the Pandemic in the UAE: Children COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Impact on the Choice of Distance versus Face-to-Face Learning Modalities: An In-Depth Analysis of a National Study

This study addresses the crucial aspect of childhood COVID-19 vaccination and its impact on parental decisions concerning learning modalities during the pandemic. This study aimed to gauge parental hesitancy towards vaccinating their children and its influence on choosing between distance and face-to-face learning options. Following STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies, this study surveyed 1973 parents in the United Arab Emirates using Google Forms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed that while more than half of the parents (51.6%) were willing to vaccinate their children if the COVID-19 vaccine was accessible and affordable, a significant majority (91.2%) expressed concerns about the rapid vaccine development process, which was the primary reason for vaccine rejection. Interestingly, a sizable portion (55.3%) had experienced online learning in the previous academic term, and, of those, 59.6% believed it negatively influenced their children's academic performance. Consequently, 66.4% expressed intent to shift their children back to face-to-face learning once feasible. Significantly, parents with medical backgrounds were more inclined (91.6%) to opt for face-to-face schooling compared to those without such backgrounds. Logistic regression analysis indicated associations between sociodemographic characteristics, educational level and background, and the decision to return children to face-to-face learning. Interestingly, when it comes to vaccine hesitancy, a noteworthy connection exists between the parents' reluctance to vaccinate their children and their preference for distance learning. In fact, parents who responded negatively to vaccinating their children against COVID-19, if the vaccine was available, showed a clear preference for the distance learning modality (p-value < 0.0001). This study underscores the complex interplay of factors and community perspectives shaping parental acceptance of childhood COVID-19 vaccination. The development pace of vaccines significantly influences parents' attitudes and beliefs about vaccination programs. Parents' medical backgrounds exhibit a clear correlation with their perceptions of sending children back to school safely. This highlights the potential impact of parental medical knowledge on decision making, emphasizing the need to consider parents' professional backgrounds when devising education- and vaccination-related policies.

Exploring Community Perceptions of COVID-19 and Vaccine Hesitancy in Selected Cities of Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study

Even though the COVID-19 vaccine has been available and free of charge to the targeted population in Ethiopia, the vaccination rate was lower than needed to achieve herd immunity at community level. This study aimed to explore community perceptions of COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy in selected cities of Ethiopia involving 70 in-depth interviews and 28 focused group discussions. The audio-taped data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach using the ATLAS.ti software version 8. The findings revealed that COVID-19 was perceived as evil and caused fear and frustration upon its emergence. The community initially used traditional remedies for its prevention but later transitioned to employing non-pharmaceutical interventions. The primary reasons for vaccine hesitancy were misinformation and misconceptions, such as connecting the vaccine with the mark of the beast, a lack of trust due to the multiple vaccine types, a shorter production timeline resulting in distrust of its effectiveness, and a fear of pain and side effects. Based on our findings, we recommend monitoring the use of social media and countering misinformation with the correct information and continuous public health campaigns. Further studies should be conducted to assess the types and magnitude of impacts from the myths and misconceptions on vaccination uptake.

The Role of Social Media in Health Misinformation and Disinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of social media platforms to seek information continues to increase. Social media platforms can be used to disseminate important information to people worldwide instantaneously. However, their viral nature also makes it easy to share misinformation, disinformation, unverified information, and fake news. The unprecedented reliance on social media platforms to seek information during the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by increased incidents of misinformation and disinformation. Consequently, there was an increase in the number of scientific publications related to the role of social media in disseminating health misinformation and disinformation at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health misinformation and disinformation, especially in periods of global public health disasters, can lead to the erosion of trust in policy makers at best and fatal consequences at worst.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports a bibliometric analysis aimed at investigating the evolution of research publications related to the role of social media as a driver of health misinformation and disinformation since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, this study aimed to identify the top trending keywords, niche topics, authors, and publishers for publishing papers related to the current research, as well as the global collaboration between authors on topics related to the role of social media in health misinformation and disinformation since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The Scopus database was accessed on June 8, 2023, using a combination of Medical Subject Heading and author-defined terms to create the following search phrases that targeted the title, abstract, and keyword fields: ("Health*" OR "Medical") AND ("Misinformation" OR "Disinformation" OR "Fake News") AND ("Social media" OR "Twitter" OR "Facebook" OR "YouTube" OR "WhatsApp" OR "Instagram" OR "TikTok") AND ("Pandemic*" OR "Corona*" OR "Covid*"). A total of 943 research papers published between 2020 and June 2023 were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation), VOSviewer (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University), and the Biblioshiny package in Bibliometrix (K-Synth Srl) for RStudio (Posit, PBC).

RESULTS

The highest number of publications was from 2022 (387/943, 41%). Most publications (725/943, 76.9%) were articles. JMIR published the most research papers (54/943, 5.7%). Authors from the United States collaborated the most, with 311 coauthored research papers. The keywords "Covid-19," "social media," and "misinformation" were the top 3 trending keywords, whereas "learning systems," "learning models," and "learning algorithms" were revealed as the niche topics on the role of social media in health misinformation and disinformation during the COVID-19 outbreak.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborations between authors can increase their productivity and citation counts. Niche topics such as "learning systems," "learning models," and "learning algorithms" could be exploited by researchers in future studies to analyze the influence of social media on health misinformation and disinformation during periods of global public health emergencies.

Key Considerations during the Transition from the Acute Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has been met with an unprecedented response from the scientific community, leading to the development, investigation, and authorization of vaccines and antivirals, ultimately reducing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on global public health. However, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being eradicated, continues to evolve, and causes substantial health and economic burdens. In this narrative review, we posit essential points on SARS-CoV-2 and its responsible management during the transition from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed, despite Omicron (sub)variant(s) causing clinically milder infections, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being a negligible pathogen. It requires continued genomic surveillance, particularly if one considers that its future (sub)lineages do not necessarily have to be milder. Antivirals and vaccines remain the essential elements in COVID-19 management. However, the former could benefit from further development and improvements in dosing, while the seasonal administration of the latter requires simplification to increase interest and tackle vaccine hesitancy. It is also essential to ensure the accessibility of COVID-19 pharmaceuticals and vaccines in low-income countries and improve the understanding of their use in the context of the long-term goals of SARS-CoV-2 management. Regardless of location, the primary role of COVID-19 awareness and education must be played by healthcare workers, who directly communicate with patients and serve as role models for healthy behaviors.

Between nudges and mandates: The drivers of COVID-19 vaccination intentions and subsequent uptake in Russia

Despite high levels of morbidity and mortality, as well as the widespread availability of domestic vaccines, Russia demonstrated significantly low rates of vaccination throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This research explores vaccination intentions before the start of the immunisation campaign and the consequent uptake in Russia after the introduction of mandatory vaccination policy in certain industries and proof-of-immunisation for social activities. Using a nationally representative panel dataset, we analyse factors behind individual vaccination decisions using binary and multinomial logistic regressions. Special attention is given to the effect of employment in industries with vaccine mandates and personal factors which determine individual "nudgeability" to vaccination (e.g., personality traits, beliefs, vaccine alertness, self-perceived vaccine availability etc.). Our results show that 49 per cent of the population received at least one shot of COVID-19 vaccine by autumn 2021 after the introduction of mandatory vaccination. Vaccination intentions before the rollout of the nationwide immunisation campaign are correlated with the consequent attitudes and uptake, although the prediction is not perfect. 40 percent of vaccine refusers eventually got vaccinated, while 16 percent of vaccine supporters turned into refusers, revealing the lack of promotion of vaccine safety and effectiveness. To a large extent, vaccination refusal and hesitance are explained by vaccine alertness. Vaccine mandates significantly increased the uptake in several affected industries, especially education. These results offer important insights for designing information policy, relevant for future vaccination campaigns.

Public Knowledge About COVID-19 Booster Vaccines in Pakistan: A Study Conducted in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has deteriorated the healthcare system and economy worldwide. Globally, by making the primary vaccination against the coronavirus necessary, the surge in cases waned, but as the effects of this vaccination decreased after some time, to prevent another pandemic, vaccination was still necessary. As a result, receiving a COVID-19 booster shot can boost immunity against the coronavirus. This study aimed to assess knowledge of COVID-19 booster vaccines in Pakistan among the general public and understand the factors affecting the vaccination process in the state. In this cross-sectional study, non-probability convenience sampling was done. Its physical data collection was conducted in September 2022 in a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Data were collected from 384 individuals who visited the hospital with consent before filling out the questionnaire. The mean age of respondents was 35.81 (standard deviation (SD) = ±13.006), and 98.7% of individuals were primarily vaccinated for COVID-19, but out of these, only 60.1% received the booster jab. The most commonly reported side effects of primary doses of COVID-19 and its booster were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and fever, but these effects did not appear to have as much of an impact on the vaccination process as education did. The results are evident that out of primarily vaccinated individuals against COVID-19, 40.16% are reluctant to receive its booster. Therefore, it is essential to create awareness among the masses about vaccination and its importance.

Global acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among persons with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This review aimed to estimate the level of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among persons with diabetes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to identify relevant studies for this review. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to generate an overall estimate of vaccine acceptance. The I² statistic was used to quantify the degree of variation across studies, and subgroup analysis was conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity. The review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).

RESULTS

This review included 18 studies involving 11,292 diabetes patients. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among persons with diabetes was 76.1% (95% CI: 66.7% - 83.5%). The pooled prevalence across the continent ranged from 68.9% (95% CI: 47.8% - 84.3%) in Asia to 82.1% (95% CI: 80.2% - 83.8%) in Europe. Barriers to vaccine acceptance included misinformation, lack of information, mistrust, health concerns, and external influences.

CONCLUSION

The barriers to vaccine acceptance identified in this review, could inform the formulation of health policies and public health interventions that are specifically tailored to address the needs of persons with diabetes.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccines: Protective Shields or Threatening Risks? A Descriptive Exploratory Study among the Italian Population

Although several quantitative studies have explored vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research on the factors underlying attitudes toward vaccination is still lacking. To fill this gap, this study aimed to investigate the general perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines among the Italian population with a qualitative approach. The sample included 700 Italian participants who completed an online survey. Open questions underwent a descriptive analysis for unveiling meaning categories, while differences in the prevalence of categories were calculated using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Vaccination was associated with the following seven main themes: 'safety', 'healthcare', 'vaccine delivery', 'progress', 'ambivalence', 'mistrust', and 'ethics'. Vaccinated individuals more frequently reported words related to the safety theme (χ2 = 46.7, p < 0.001), while unvaccinated individuals more frequently reported words related to mistrust (χ2 = 123, p < 0.001) and ambivalence (χ2 = 48.3, p < 0.001) themes. Working in the healthcare sector and being younger than 40 years affected the general perceptions of vaccination in terms of pro-vaccine attitudes. Unvaccinated individuals were more affected by the negative experiences of their acquaintances and manifested more distrust of scientific researchers, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies than vaccinated individuals. These findings suggest promoting collaborative efforts of governments, health policymakers, and media sources, including social media companies, in order to deal with cognitions and emotions supporting vaccine hesitancy.

Political Ideology and Trust in Government to Ensure Vaccine Safety: Using a U.S. Survey to Explore the Role of Political Trust

Since early 2020, the rapid expansion of COVID-19 has raised concerns about vaccine safety and the government's handling of it. Particularly notable and concerning has been a growing number of people who oppose vaccines, as this opposition poses a threat to public health. Those for and against vaccination have become polarized along a political divide. Within this context, this study focuses on the role of political trust, exploring whether political ideology is associated with the perception that the government can ensure the safety of vaccines and whether there is a moderator that can alleviate the concerns of those who oppose the government's handling of vaccine safety on ideological grounds. This study relies on the 2021 U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) and employs an ordered probit method because the dependent variable is an ordered category. The ordered probit model includes a weight provided by the U.S. GSS to account for the population. The sample size was 473 because of the inclusion of all the variables relevant to this study. The results obtained are as follows: First, conservatives associate negatively with support for the government's handling of vaccine safety. Second, more importantly, conservatives exhibit a higher trust level toward the government to ensure vaccine safety if their level of political trust increases. The results point to important implications. Political ideology matters in how individuals view the government's handling of vaccine safety. Political trust plays a key role in helping individuals alter their views toward the government's handling of vaccine safety. This points to a need for the government to take political trust seriously and work hard to improve the public's trust in the government.

Facilitators of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in Grenada: a qualitative study

Objectives

To identify the factors contributing to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Grenada.

Methods

A phenomenological study was conducted using semi-structured interviews at vaccination and pop-up testing clinics during a spike in COVID-19 cases on the island. Interview questions were developed using the health belief model related to perceived threat of COVID-19, perceived benefits of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, and cues to action. Data were analyzed using a deductive approach to identify themes, categories, and subcategories.

Results

Twenty-five interviews were transcribed and coded. In all, 68% of participants were unvaccinated, 12% were partially vaccinated, and 20% were fully vaccinated. Data analysis revealed two main themes: facilitators and barriers. Factors more likely to encourage vaccination (facilitators) included trust in medical advice and vaccine efficacy, social responsibility, and vaccine mandates for travel, employment, and social activities. Factors hindering vaccination (barriers) included: perceived low threat of COVID-19; preference for natural remedies; concerns about contraindications because of underlying health conditions; fear; mistrust of vaccines and related messaging; vaccine accessibility; and the many different information sources.

Conclusions

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy is key to combating the detrimental effects of COVID-19 in Grenada. Public health interventions and policies that address barriers and capitalize on facilitators can increase vaccine uptake.

Knowledge and attitudes of health care workers about monkeypox virus infection in Southern Italy

Background

This present survey sought to investigate the level of knowledge and the attitudes pertaining the monkeypox (mpox) virus infection among a sample of health care workers (HCWs) in Italy, as well as the possible role of different factors on these outcomes.

Methods

The cross-sectional survey was performed from July through October, 2022 at four randomly selected hospitals located in Southern Italy.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 421 HCWs, for an overall 59% response rate. Less than two-thirds were able to define the disease and the correct answer of the transmission mechanisms ranged from 22.8% for contact with contaminated objects to 75.8% through close contact with body fluids. Only 4% and 12.8% indicated HCWs and elderly/frail/people with underlying immune deficiencies as risk groups. The mean overall score of the knowledge assessment on mpox was 3.4 (0-9). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that HCWs with a lower number of years of working experience and those who had acquired information about mpox from scientific journals were more likely to have a higher level of knowledge. The average score of the perception of the severity of the disease was 6.3. A similar score with a value of 6.1 has been observed for the statement that mpox is a serious problem for the population. Regarding the level of concern about contracting mpox, the mean score was 5.1. Only 10.5% reported that they feel that this disease can be prevented, with an overall mean score of 6.5. Almost all HCWs reported that they are still living as usual, with no modification of their behavior for fear of contracting the mpox. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model showed that women, HCWs with a higher level of knowledge about mpox, and those who needed additional information about mpox were more likely to have a higher level of perception of the severity of the disease.

Conclusion

This survey has demonstrated that HCWs had an unsatisfactory level of knowledge toward mpox and only nearly half showed positive attitudes. Strategic health training programs should be made so that knowledge can be acquired.

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.

The relationship between fear of COVID-19 infection, fear of COVID-19 vaccination and Big Five personality traits: a mediation model

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of our correlational, cross-sectional study was to determine the relationship between fear of COVID-19 infection and fear of COVID-19 vaccination and the role of the Big Five personality traits in this relationship.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

The study sample consisted of 462 participants, including 286 women and 176 men, aged 18 to 75, recruited from the general population. The Big Five personality traits were diagnosed using the Polish version of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. We used an 11-point numerical rating scale to measure the intensity of fear of COVID-19 infection as well as fear of COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

The results indicate that fear of infection has a weak positive correlation with fear of vaccination. Both types of fear have a weak negative correlation with emotional stability and openness to experience. People diagnosed with COVID-19 have significantly higher levels of fear of vaccination and lower levels of emotional stability compared to those without a COVID-19 diagnosis. Fear of infection proves a good predictor of fear of vaccination and a likely mediator between emotional stability and fear of vaccination against COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The results may increase our understanding of the role of personality traits, such as emotional stability, in the fear of infection and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy.

Prevalence and Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in South East Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,166,275 Respondents

Despite its importance in guiding public health decisions, studies on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and its determinants in South East Asia (SEA) are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and the variables influencing the vaccine's acceptance. This review is registered under PROSPERO CRD42022352198. We included studies that reported vaccination acceptance from all SEA countries, utilising five academic databases (Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar), three Indonesian databases (the Indonesian Scientific Journal Database, Neliti, and Indonesia One Search), two pre-print databases (MedRxiv and BioRxiv), and two Thailand databases (ThaiJo and Thai-Journal Citation Index). The analysis was conducted using STATA 17.0 with metaprop commands. The prevalence for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in SEA was 71% (95%CI 69-74; I2 99.87%, PI: 68.6-73.5). Myanmar achieved the highest COVID-19 vaccination acceptance prevalence, with 86% (95%CI 84-89), followed by Vietnam with 82% (95% CI 79-85; I2 99.04%) and Malaysia with 78% (95%CI 72-84; I2 99.88%). None of the ten determinants studied (age, sex, education, previous COVID-19 infections, smoking and marriage status, health insurance, living together, chronic diseases, and healthcare workers) were significantly associated with acceptance. This result will be useful in guiding vaccination uptake in SEA.

Informed Consent in Mass Vaccination against COVID-19 in Romania: Implications of Bad Management

Informing patients and obtaining valid informed consent were significant challenges for the COVID-19 immunization program. In Romania, the authorities issued a strategy for activities regarding vaccination against COVID-19, including the informed consent procedure. The lack of legal preparedness was evident when the medical personnel at the vaccination centers were provided with informed consent forms that did not respect the existing legal requirements. In addition, the protocol for persons seeking vaccination stated that the patient was supposed to receive the informed consent form from the receptionist in order to read and sign it. We analyzed the legal implications and the malpractice litigation risk associated with this practice. Due to essential deficiencies and in the absence of an official enactment of new regulations, we conclude that the vaccination consent process did not comply with the legal requirements. Implications include medical personnel’s legal liability, loss of malpractice insurance coverage, and public mistrust that may have contributed to a low vaccination rate. Given the potential of future pandemics or other health crises, this may be a valuable lesson for developing better legal strategies.

Identifying the determinants of non-injection of covid-19 vaccine: A qualitative study in Urmia, Iran

Objective

Extensive vaccination coverage is one of the most effective ways to control COVID-19 vaccine, but the tendency to inject the vaccine is always hampered and there are various determinants of non-injection. Hence, the present study was done with the aim of identifying the determinants of non-injection of COVID-19 vaccine with a qualitative approach in the city of Urmia in Iran.

Methods

The present study was conducted with a qualitative approach and conventional content analysis method among 36 people who refused to be vaccinated. Access to participants and data collection was done in person (28 interviews) and online (8 interviews) through targeted sampling and snowball method and semi-structured interviews. Data management was performed using MAXQDA-2018 software and its analysis was performed by Graneheim and Lundman method. Also, Guba and Lincoln criteria were observed to improve the quality of results.

Results

After analyzing the data, 3 main categories and 11 subcategories were obtained including (1) Individual factors (fear of short-term side effects of vaccine, personality traits, distrust of vaccines and pharmaceutical companies), (2) Socio-cultural factors (conspiracy theory, social learning, misconceptions about COVID-19, fatalism), legal and managerial factors (incomplete information, difficult and irregular access to vaccination centers, lack of restrictions and compulsion to be vaccinated, lack of incentives to be vaccinated).

Conclusion

The results showed that various determinants were involved in the non-injection of COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, efforts to increase vaccination coverage require comprehensive measures at different levels and cross-sectoral cooperation between governmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations.

Parents' reasons to vaccinate their children aged 5–11 years against COVID-19 in Italy

Objectives

The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate why parents decide to vaccinate, as well as the determinants, their children aged 5–11 years against COVID-19 in Italy.

Methods

The survey was conducted from January through May 2022. All parents/guardians who came in randomly selected days to immunization centers for the administration of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to their child were asked to complete a questionnaire about socio-demographic characteristics, attitudes toward COVID-19 infection and vaccination, reason(s) regarding their decision to vaccinate their child, and source(s) of information.

Results

A total of 358 questionnaires were collected. Parent's perception that COVID-19 is a severe illness for the child, assessed using a 10-point Likert scale, was 7.5. The overall mean scores of the risk perception for their child of having the COVID-19 before and after the vaccination were 8.1 and 6.3. A significantly higher parents' level of risk perception for their child of having the COVID-19 after the vaccination has been observed among those not having a university degree, those with the child having at least one chronic medical condition, and those who perceived that COVID-19 is a severe illness for the child. The mean value of respondent trust in the information provided by the pediatricians on a 10-point scale Likert type was 7.6. Female, not having a university degree, higher perception that COVID-19 is a severe disease, not having received information about the vaccination from pediatricians, and needing information had a significantly higher concern of side effects after the vaccination. The most common reasons for vaccinating their children included wanting to protect the child against COVID-19, to attend the school with less risk, to prevent the transmission to family members, and to practice sport and other activities with less risks. Participants with a university degree were more likely to have vaccinated their child for attending the school and practicing sport and other activities with less risks.

Conclusions

More publicity should be promoted among parents of children aged 5–11 years which would increase the coverage rates and thus lower the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce the occurrence of COVID-19.

Nur MA, Mohamed FY. COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage and Potential Drivers of Vaccine Uptake among Healthcare Workers in SOMALIA: A Cross-Sectional Study

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are one of the most vulnerable groups for contracting COVID-19 and dying as a result of it. Over 10,000 HCWs in Africa have been infected with COVID-19, according to the World Health Organization, making it a substantial occupational health threat for HCWs. To that end, Somalia’s Ministry of Health has ordered that all healthcare personnel obtain the COVID-19 vaccination to safeguard themselves and the community they serve. In this investigation, we aimed to assess the COVID-19 vaccination coverage and its associated factors among healthcare workers in Somalia. A cross-sectional study was employed to examine COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel in Somalia. The data were obtained via an online questionnaire supplied by Google forms between December 2021 and February 2022, where a total of 1281 healthcare workers from the various federal states of Somalia were recruited. A multinomial regression analysis was used to analyse the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Overall, 1281 HCWs participated (630 females, 651 males) with a mean age and standard deviation of 27.7 years ± 7.1. The overall vaccine coverage was 37.4%. Sex, age, the state of residency, education level, specialization, hospital COVID-19 policy, vaccine availability at the centre, COVID-19 treatment centre, and health facility level were the factors that influenced the COVID-19 vaccine uptake among health professionals in Somalia. Male healthcare employees were 2.2 times (odds ratio-OR = 2.2; confidence interval-CI: 1.70, 2.75, p < 0.001) more likely than female healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated. The survey discovered that the COVID-19 vaccine coverage among health professionals was quite low, with the major contributing factors being accessibility, security challenges and literary prowess. Additional efforts to enhance vaccination uptake are needed to improve the COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Vaccine Resistance and Hesitancy among Older Adults Who Live Alone or Only with an Older Partner in Community in the Early Stage of the Fifth Wave of COVID-19 in Hong Kong

Vaccination is an effective way in providing protection against COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes. However, vaccine resistance and hesitancy are a great concern among vulnerable populations including older adults who live alone or only with an older partner. This study examined their vaccination status and reasons and associated factors of vaccine resistance and hesitancy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among older adults living alone or only with an older partner in communities in Hong Kong. Participants were interviewed between October 2021 and February 2022. Logistic regression analyses were employed to examine factors associated with vaccine resistance and hesitancy. Of the 2109 included participants, the mean age was 79.3 years (SD 7.6), 1460 (69.2%) were female, 1334 (63.3%) lived alone, and 1621 (76.9%) were receiving social security support. The vaccine uptake, non-uptake (i.e., resistance), and hesitancy rates were 50.1%, 34.4%, and 15.5%, respectively. The top four reasons for vaccine resistance and hesitancy were “Not feeling in good health” (27%), “Worry about vaccine side effects” (18%), “Feeling no need” (10%), and “Lack of recommendation from doctors” (9%). Vaccine resistance and hesitancy was significantly associated with older age, living alone, more chronic conditions, fewer types of social media use, and lower self-rated health status. Similar associations can be observed in their separate analysis for vaccine resistance and vaccine hesitancy, and ever hospital admission over the past 6 months was additionally related to vaccine hesitancy. Older people who live alone or only with an older partner had a low vaccination rate. Poor health or worry about vaccine side effects were the most common reasons for their vaccine resistance and hesitancy. Actions are greatly needed to improve the uptake rate among this vulnerable population, especially those who were older, have poorer health, and use less social media.

Media Data and Vaccine Hesitancy: Scoping Review

Background

Media studies are important for vaccine hesitancy research, as they analyze how the media shapes risk perceptions and vaccine uptake. Despite the growth in studies in this field owing to advances in computing and language processing and an expanding social media landscape, no study has consolidated the methodological approaches used to study vaccine hesitancy. Synthesizing this information can better structure and set a precedent for this growing subfield of digital epidemiology.

Objective

This review aimed to identify and illustrate the media platforms and methods used to study vaccine hesitancy and how they build or contribute to the study of the media's influence on vaccine hesitancy and public health.

Methods

This study followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus for any studies that used media data (social media or traditional media), had an outcome related to vaccine sentiment (opinion, uptake, hesitancy, acceptance, or stance), were written in English, and were published after 2010. Studies were screened by only 1 reviewer and extracted for media platform, analysis method, the theoretical models used, and outcomes.

Results

In total, 125 studies were included, of which 71 (56.8%) used traditional research methods and 54 (43.2%) used computational methods. Of the traditional methods, most used content analysis (43/71, 61%) and sentiment analysis (21/71, 30%) to analyze the texts. The most common platforms were newspapers, print media, and web-based news. The computational methods mostly used sentiment analysis (31/54, 57%), topic modeling (18/54, 33%), and network analysis (17/54, 31%). Fewer studies used projections (2/54, 4%) and feature extraction (1/54, 2%). The most common platforms were Twitter and Facebook. Theoretically, most studies were weak. The following five major categories of studies arose: antivaccination themes centered on the distrust of institutions, civil liberties, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-specific concerns; provaccination themes centered on ensuring vaccine safety using scientific literature; framing being important and health professionals and personal stories having the largest impact on shaping vaccine opinion; the coverage of vaccination-related data mostly identifying negative vaccine content and revealing deeply fractured vaccine communities and echo chambers; and the public reacting to and focusing on certain signals-in particular cases, deaths, and scandals-which suggests a more volatile period for the spread of information.

Conclusions

The heterogeneity in the use of media to study vaccines can be better consolidated through theoretical grounding. Areas of suggested research include understanding how trust in institutions is associated with vaccine uptake, how misinformation and information signaling influence vaccine uptake, and the evaluation of government communications on vaccine rollouts and vaccine-related events. The review ends with a statement that media data analyses, though groundbreaking in approach, should supplement-not supplant-current practices in public health research.