Anticipating hopes, fears and expectations towards COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative interview study in seven European countries

Between information campaign and controversy: a quantitative newspaper content analysis about COVID-19 vaccination in Switzerland and Austria

AIMS

Because media portrayal reflects and shapes public opinion and health policy, investigating news coverage of public health issues is highly relevant for public health research and practice. Addressing a topical issue, this study investigated how newspaper coverage framed COVID-19 vaccines in Austria and German-speaking Switzerland and how it developed over time.

METHODS

A quantitative newspaper content analysis of six newspapers from Austria and German-speaking Switzerland published between January 1 and 31, 2022 was conducted. Frames were identified for each country separately through hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward's method) based on frame elements.

RESULTS

Four frames were identified in both countries: (1) Evaluating new vaccines, (2) Discussing mandates, (3) Promoting vaccination, (4) Mentioning vaccines. In Frames 1 (Switzerland 86.4%, Austria 93.3%) and 3 (Switzerland 92.7%, Austria 98.9%), most articles included vaccine-endorsing statements, with Swiss coverage including additional negative statements more often than Austrian coverage (43.2%/44.6% vs 4.0%/3.3%). Frame 2 was closely linked to vaccine skepticism only in Austria and contained more evaluative statements in Austrian newspapers (25.4% endorsing, 35.4% rejecting; in Switzerland 14.5%/18.1%). The Austrian tabloid Kronen Zeitung published most articles (497/1091, 45.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The commercialized and comparatively high share of tabloid news coverage in Austria may have contributed to oversimplified and polarizing COVID-19 vaccine debates in this context. Insufficiently balanced and adequate information may contribute to a loss of public trust in vaccination and may therefore affect vaccination uptake. Authorities and public health professionals should consider this effect when designing information campaigns.

I want to be safe: understanding the main drivers behind vaccination choice throughout the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Despite being a major advancement in modern medicine, vaccines face widespread hesitancy and refusal, posing challenges to immunization campaigns. The COVID-19 pandemic accentuated vaccine hesitancy, emphasizing the pivotal role of beliefs in efficacy and safety on vaccine acceptance rates. This study explores the influence of efficacy and safety perceptions on vaccine uptake in Italy during the pandemic.

METHODS

We administered a 70-item questionnaire to a representative sample of 600 Italian speakers. Participants were tasked with assessing the perceived effectiveness and safety of each vaccine dose, along with providing reasons influencing their vaccination choices. Additionally, we conducted an experimental manipulation, exploring the effects of four framing messages that emphasized safety and/or efficacy on participants' willingness to receive a hypothetical fourth vaccine dose. Furthermore, participants were asked about their level of trust in the scientific community and public authorities, as well as their use of different information channels for obtaining COVID-19-related information.

RESULTS

Our study reveals a dynamic shift in vaccine efficacy and safety perceptions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially influencing vaccination compliance. Initially perceived as more effective than safe, this assessment reversed by the time of the third dose. Beliefs regarding safety, rather than efficacy, played a significant role in anticipating future vaccinations (e.g., the booster dose). Safety-focused messages positively affected vaccination intent, while efficacy-focused messages showed limited impact. We also observed a changing trend in reasons for vaccination, with a decline in infection-related reasons and an increase in social related ones. Furthermore, trust dynamics evolved differently for public authorities and the scientific community.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine perception is a dynamic process shaped by evolving factors like efficacy and safety perceptions, trust levels, and individual motivations. Our study sheds light on the complex dynamics that underlie the perception of vaccine safety and efficacy, and their impact on willingness to vaccinate. We discuss these results in light of bounded rationality, loss aversion and classic utility theory.

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

METHODS

Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.

Narratives about distributed health literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic

The promotion of health literacy was a key public health strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the role of social networks and relationships for support with health literacy-related tasks in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is scarcely understood. Moving beyond traditional notions of health literacy, which focus on individual skills and knowledge, this study uses the concept of distributed health literacy to explore how individuals make meaning of and respond to health literacy and make their literacy skills available to others through their relational and socially situated and lived experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on 89 semi-structured interviews conducted in three European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland) between October and December 2021, we found narratives of stabilization, hybridization, and disruption that show how health literacy concerning COVID-19 is a complex social construct intertwined with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses distributed among individuals, communities, and institutions within socioeconomic and political contexts that affect their existence. This paper opens new empirical directions to understand the critical engagement of individuals and communities toward health information aimed at making sense of a complex and prolonged situation of uncertainty in a pandemic.

Manifestation of Health Denialism in Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination: A Qualitative Study

Science denialism is characterized by the refusal to accept existing consensus and available evidence. Typical strategies denialists employ include spreading conspiracies, selective use of information, relying on fake experts, or general fallacies in logic. A flood of misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, it was a subject of many denialistic opinions, from denying the existence of the epidemic challenge to claims that questioned the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. This study's main aim was to assess the manifestations of denialism in attitudes toward the preventive measures recommended during the pandemic, with a special focus on vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted with fifty representatives of the general population, demonstrating diversified opinions about COVID-19 vaccines and other preventive behaviors. The interviews were performed face to face in participants' houses or at other places they identified as convenient. Some of the interviewees preferred to do the interview via teleconference. The interviews were carried out from November 2022 to March 2023. The interviewees were recruited initially by convenience, and in further stages, the snowball technique was used. The interviewees were residents of four main administrative districts in Poland. Out of 50 participants, 26 were males, 29 were between 18-40, 16 were inhabitants of rural areas, and 28 had a university level of education. The interviews were based on a semi-structured guide that addressed, in addition to views about the origin of the new coronavirus, respondents' attitudes toward vaccination and sanitary recommendation, the health status of interviewees, their use of healthcare services, and their health behaviors. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed with MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2022 software (Release 22.7.0). Thematic analysis (TA) was applied to the content generated from the interviews. Based on the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, the participants were divided into three groups: unvaccinated, hesitant, and vaccinated (18, 4, and 28 interviewees, respectively). The main themes were established based on the TA of the interviews: attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, perception of sources of information, and the origin of the new coronavirus. The first theme decidedly drew the greatest attention of the interviewees. There was also a clear relationship between vaccination status and the presence of denialist thinking among interviewees. Interestingly, the role of experts as a key source of information about the pandemic was underlined by study participants. However, the criteria for being an expert differed. The subject of the origin of a new coronavirus was not interesting to interviewees. The analysis of the adherence to preventive measures revealed an interplay of diversified attitudes and motivations. Individuals presenting denialist views most frequently abstained from COVID-19 vaccination. However, such views were also present among those who hesitated or even among those who had been vaccinated. Furthermore, denialism was only one of the determinants of adherence to preventive measures.

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.

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.

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state-citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

Drawing upon 152 in-depth qualitative interviews with residents in Austria carried out in the first year of the pandemic, this article discusses how people's experiences with COVID-19 policies reflect and reshape state-citizen relations. Coinciding with a significant government crisis, the first year of COVID-19 in Austria saw pandemic measures justified with reference to a biological, often medical understanding of health that framed disease prevention in terms of transmission reduction, often with reference to metrics such as hospitalisation rates, etc. Instead of using this biomedical frame, our interviewees, however, drew attention to biopsychosocial dimensions of the crisis and problematised the entanglements between economy and health. We call this the emergence of a biosocial notion of citizenship that is attentive to psychological, social and economic dimensions of health. Insights into the biosocial nature of pandemic citizenship open a window of opportunity for addressing long-standing social injustices.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine fatigue

There is growing concern that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine fatigue will be a major obstacle in maintaining immunity in the general population. In this study, we assessed vaccine acceptance in future scenarios in two conjoint experiments, investigating determinants such as new vaccines, communication, costs/incentives and legal rules. The experiments were embedded in an online survey (n = 6,357 participants) conducted in two European countries (Austria and Italy). Our results suggest that vaccination campaigns should be tailored to subgroups based on their vaccination status. Among the unvaccinated, campaign messages conveying community spirit had a positive effect (0.343, confidence interval (CI) 0.019-0.666), whereas offering positive incentives, such as a cash reward (0.722, CI 0.429-1.014) or voucher (0.670, CI 0.373-0.967), was pivotal to the decision-making of those vaccinated once or twice. Among the triple vaccinated, vaccination readiness increased when adapted vaccines were offered (0.279, CI 0.182-0.377), but costs (-0.795, CI -0.935 to -0.654) and medical dissensus (-0.161, CI -0.293 to -0.030) reduced their likelihood to get vaccinated. We conclude that failing to mobilize the triple vaccinated is likely to result in booster vaccination rates falling short of expectations. For long-term success, measures fostering institutional trust should be considered. These results provide guidance to those responsible for future COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

The social and socio-political embeddedness of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making: A five-country qualitative interview study from Europe

The uptake ofCOVID-19 vaccines has varied considerably across European countries. This study investigates people's decision-making process regarding vaccination by analyzing qualitative interviews (n = 214) with residents from five European countries: Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland. We identify three factors that shape vaccination decision-making: individual experiences and pre-existing attitudes towards vaccination, social environment, and socio-political context. Based on this analysis, we present a typology of decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccines, where some types present stable stances towards vaccines and others change over time. Trust in government and relevant stakeholders, broader social factors, and people's direct social environment were particularly relevant to these dynamics. We conclude that vaccination campaigns should be considered long-term projects (also outside of pandemics) in need of regular adjustment, communication and fine-tuning to ensure public trust. This is particularly pertinent for booster vaccinations, such as COVID-19 or influenza.

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.

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

In Italy, like in other countries, issues still exist regarding how to reach high vaccine coverage and several countries have considered policies to increase vaccine uptake. In the present study, we focused on people who have a favorable attitude towards vaccination. In March-April 2021, we asked a representative sample of Italian participants (N = 1,530) to assess to what extent they would support the adoption of a COVID-19 vaccination certificate, excluding unvaccinated people from participating in public and cultural events. Furthermore, as the vaccination coverage increases, severe forms of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization more likely involve unvaccinated individuals, who might be perceived as those who don't contribute to ending the pandemic and who constitute a significant health cost for society. We then asked participants to assess to what extent they would favor the idea of requiring people who refuse the vaccine to pay for their own medical expenses in case of hospitalization. We hypothesized that support for the adoption of the vaccination certificate would be predicted by the COVID-19 vaccination status (received, booked, high-, medium-, low-willingness to be vaccinated, or refused) and by the same factors that are known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. These factors were also tested in a model aimed at investigating if a vaccinated person would favor a measure requiring the unvaccinated individuals to pay for medical expenses. Results confirmed that the support towards the vaccination certificate policy was strongly predicted by the vaccination status and by factors known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. Interestingly (and surprisingly), a similar pattern was observed for the support of the policy about medical expenses. In conclusion, support for a COVID-19 vaccination certificate was high among the Italian population in the early phases of the vaccination rollout. The findings are discussed considering potential policies to tackle the pandemic.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

An Immune Response to Heterologous ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 Vaccination against COVID-19: Evaluation of the anti-RBD Specific IgG Antibodies Titers and Interferon Gamma Release Assay (IGRA) Test Results

This study aimed to assess the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) titers and Interferon-Gamma Release Assay (IGRA) test results following administration of booster BNT162b2 in 48 ChAd-primed participants (vaccination schedule: ChAd/ChAd/BNT). Whole blood samples were collected: first, before and second, 21 days after the booster dose. The IgG level was measured using chemiluminescent immunoassay; the intensity of the T-cell response—IFNγ concentration—was assessed using IGRA test. At 21 days after the booster, all subjects achieved reactive/positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, and IGRA test results showed a significant increase compared to the results before booster administration. We compared the results before and after the booster between participants with and without prior history of COVID-19. The IFNγ concentrations in both cohorts were higher in convalescents (both before booster and 21 days after). The IgG titers were subtly lower in COVID-19 convalescents than in naïve but without statistical significance. Data on cell-mediated immunity are scarce, especially with regard to the general population. A better understanding of the complexity of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 could contribute to developing more effective vaccination strategies.

Attitudes towards coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and sources of information across diverse ethnic groups in the UK: a qualitative study from June to October 2020

OBJECTIVES

Across diverse ethnic groups in the UK, explore attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccination and sources of COVID-19 information.

DESIGN

Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) conducted June-October 2020 before UK COVID-19 vaccine approval. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

SETTING

England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

100 participants from 19 self-identified ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Mistrust and doubt were reported across ethnic groups. Many participants shared concerns about perceived lack of information about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy. There were differences within each ethnic group, with factors such as occupation and perceived health status influencing intention to accept a vaccine once made available. Across ethnic groups, participants believed that public contact occupations, older adults and vulnerable groups should be prioritised for vaccination. Perceived risk, social influences, occupation, age, comorbidities and engagement with healthcare influenced participants' intentions to accept vaccination once available. All Jewish FG participants intended to accept, while all Traveller FG participants indicated they probably would not.Facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake across ethnic groups included: desire to return to normality and protect health and well-being; perceived higher risk of infection; evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy; vaccine availability and accessibility.COVID-19 information sources were influenced by social factors and included: friends and family; media and news outlets; research literature; and culture and religion. Participants across most different ethnic groups were concerned about misinformation or had negative attitudes towards the media.

CONCLUSIONS

During vaccination rollout, including boosters, commissioners and providers should provide accurate information, authentic community outreach and use appropriate channels to disseminate information and counter misinformation. Adopting a context-specific approach to vaccine resources, interventions and policies and empowering communities has potential to increase trust in the programme.

A Systematic Investigation of American Vaccination Preference via Historical Data

While COVID-19 vaccines are generally available, not all people receive vaccines. To reach herd immunity, most of a population must be vaccinated. It is, thus, important to identify factors influencing people’s vaccination preferences, as knowledge of these preferences allows for governments and health programs to increase their vaccine coverage more effectively. Fortunately, vaccination data were collected by U.S. Census Bureau in partnership with the CDC via the Household Pulse Survey (HPS) for Americans. This study presents the first analysis of the 24 vaccination datasets collected by the HPS from January 2021 to May 2022 for 250 million respondents of different ages, genders, sexual orientations, races, education statuses, marital statuses, household sizes, household income levels, and resources used for spending needs, and with different reasons for not receiving or planning to receive a vaccine. Statistical analysis techniques, including an analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey multiple comparisons test, and hierarchical clustering (HC), were implemented to analyze the HPS vaccination data in the R language. It was found that sexual orientation, gender, age, and education had statistically significant influences on the vaccination rates. In particular, the gay/lesbian group showed a higher vaccination rate than the straight group; the transgender group had a lower vaccination rate than either the female or the male groups; older respondents showed greater preference for vaccination; respondents with higher education levels also preferred vaccination. As for the other factors that were not significant enough to influence vaccinations in the ANOVA, notable trends were found. Asian Americans had higher vaccination rates than other races; respondents from larger household sizes had a lower chance of getting vaccinated; the unmarried group showed the lowed vaccination rate in the marital category; the respondents depending on borrowed money from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) showed a lower vaccination rate than people with regular incomes. Concerns regarding the side-effects and the safety of the vaccines were the two major reasons for vaccination hesitance at the beginning of the pandemic, while having no trust in the vaccines and no trust in the government became more common in the later stage of the pandemic. The findings in this study can be used by governments or organizations to improve their vaccination campaigns or methods of combating future pandemics.

Are Fear of COVID-19 and Vaccine Hesitancy Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake? A Population-Based Online Survey in Nigeria

This study examined the association between COVID-19 and fear of contracting COVID-19 and reasons for vaccination refusal. A population-based online survey was conducted via social media in Nigeria using the Fear of COVID-19 scale and items related to vaccination refusal/hesitancy items. Individuals aged 13 years and older were invited to participate. Data were analysed using binary logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at a p-value of less than 0.05. The study enrolled 577 individuals with a mean age of 31.86 years, 70% of whom were male and 27.7% of whom had received at least one dose of the vaccine against COVID-19. None of the variables on the Fear of COVID-19 scale significantly predicted vaccine uptake in multivariate analysis. However, individuals who were fearful of COVID-19 were more likely to be vaccinated in bivariate analysis (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.06–2.63). The most significant factors among the vaccination refusal items associated with COVID-19 vaccination were doubts about vaccination (adjusted OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.57–4.17) and misconceptions about vaccine safety/efficacy (adjusted OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.24–3.71). These results suggest that uptake of the vaccine against COVID-19 in Nigeria can be predicted by factors associated with vaccination refusal, but not by fear of COVID-19. To contain the pandemic COVID-19 in Nigeria, efforts should be made to educate people about the efficacy of the vaccine and to increase their confidence in vaccination.

UK ethnic minority healthcare workers' perspectives on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK ethnic minority community: A qualitative study

Background

The experiences of UK ethnic minority (UKEM) healthcare workers are crucial to ameliorating the disproportionate COVID-19 infection rate and outcomes in the UKEM community. We conducted a qualitative study on UKEM healthcare workers' perspectives on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (CVH) in the UKEM community.

Methods

Participants were 15 UKEM healthcare workers (11 females; age range: 26-58 [43.3 ± 9.4] years). Data were collected using individual and joint interviews, and a focus group, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

We generated three themes: heterogeneity (two subthemes), mistrust (six subthemes), and mitigating (six subthemes). Therein, participants distinguished CVH in the UKEM community in educational attainment and ethnicity. They pointed to the role of mistrust in CVH in the UKEM community. They opined that the mistrust underlying CVH in the UKEM community is rooted in history and religion, conspiracy theories, the speedy development and novelty of the vaccines, post-vaccination complications/side effects, false positive test results, and social media and social support/influence. Participants recommended that interventions targeted at mitigating CVH in the UKEM community need to, in a non-judgmental way, tackle dis/misinformation and provide education, and incorporate UKEM healthcare worker endorsement. They also suggested such interventions be community-oriented, enhance the convenience of vaccination centers and the possibility of vaccine choice, and appreciate that overcoming CVH and accepting vaccination is a gradual process involving personal assessment of risks and benefits.

Conclusion

CVH in the UKEM community is a multifaceted phenomenon requiring multicomponent interventions.

Repeated information of benefits reduces COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy: Experimental evidence from Germany

Background

Many countries, such as Germany, struggle to vaccinate enough people against COVID-19 despite the availability of safe and efficient vaccines. With new variants emerging and the need for booster vaccinations, overcoming vaccination hesitancy gains importance. The research to date has revealed some promising, albeit contentious, interventions to increase vaccination intention. However, these have yet to be tested for their effectiveness in increasing vaccination rates.

Methods & results

We conducted a preregistered survey experiment with N = 1,324 participants in Germany in May/June 2021. This was followed by a series of emails reminding participants to get vaccinated in August and concluded with a follow-up survey in September. We experimentally assess whether debunking vaccination myths, highlighting the benefits of being vaccinated, or sending vaccination reminders decreases hesitancy. In the survey experiment, we find no increase in the intention to vaccinate regardless of the information provided. However, communicating vaccination benefits over several weeks reduced the likelihood of not being vaccinated by 9 percentage points, which translates into a 27% reduction compared to the control group. Debunking vaccination myths and reminders alone also decreased the likelihood, yet not significantly.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that if soft governmental interventions such as information campaigns are employed, highlighting benefits should be given preference over debunking vaccination myths. Furthermore, it seems that repeated messages affect vaccination action while one-time messages might be insufficient, even for increasing vaccination intentions. Our study highlights the importance of testing interventions outside of survey experiments that are limited to measuring vaccination intentions—not actions—and immediate changes in attitudes and intentions—not long-term changes.