Regional Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in December 2020: A Natural Experiment in the French Working-Age Population

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

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

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in rural and metropolitan Western Australia: A mid-rollout cross-sectional analysis of why it exists and potential solutions

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy represents a state of uncertainty before a decision about vaccination is made. It can lead to limited vaccine uptake despite adequate supply and an efficacious product. Western Australia (WA) presents a unique challenge with a population widely spread across metropolitan and rural sites and diverse opinions regarding vaccination.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit and compare the common COVID-19 vaccine concerns in rural and metropolitan WA, and to identify proposed solutions to vaccine hesitancy.

DESIGN

A voluntary online survey was distributed via social media over a 2-week period in August 2021 during Phase 2A of the National COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Strategy. General practitioners and members of the public living in rural and metropolitan WA over the age of 18 were surveyed regarding COVID-19 vaccine concerns (blood clots; long- and short-term side effects; lack of testing; and other concerns) and suggested methods to address vaccine hesitancy. Data were analysed with a sequential mixed methods and thematic analysis approach.

FINDINGS

There were 468 general population respondents to our survey, of whom 19.0% (n = 89) lived rurally. A majority (52.6% [n = 246]) of general respondents expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The commonest concerns were long- and short-term side effects, blood clots and inadequate testing. There was a positive correlation between rurality and vaccine concerns; an inverse relationship between rurality and vaccine uptake; and an inverse relationship between vaccine concerns and uptake. Improved media coverage was the commonest solution suggested to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

DISCUSSION

A significant proportion of respondents had concerns about vaccine safety; concerns were more common in rural respondents. Rural communities may benefit from location-targeted media campaigns with a focus on breaking down barriers specific to these members of the population. Vaccine access is more challenging, and consistent messaging from trusted sources is of utmost importance to improve uptake.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is more common in rural populations. Targeted media-based education regarding vaccine safety may improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Examining General Vaccine Acceptance and COVID-19 Vaccine Intention: Comparison across Pharmacies in California and Ohio

Given the complexities surrounding vaccine acceptance of COVID-19 and other vaccines, it is important to determine the underlying health beliefs of patients in order to bridge gaps and promote vaccine confidence. With pharmacies as key hubs for vaccinations and vaccine conversations, examining patient perspectives through the lens of community pharmacy may provide a targeted insight into their patient populations. The primary objectives of this study were to measure COVID-19 vaccine intention and compare vaccine acceptance at pharmacies and clinics between California and Ohio. The secondary objectives included subgroup comparisons of vaccine intention and vaccine acceptance based on demographic characteristics. A previously validated survey instrument (5C survey tool) was administered at pharmacy sites in California and Ohio to examine respondents' vaccine acceptance (confidence, complacency, constrains, calculation, and collective responsibility). Additional items were added to capture flu and COVID-19 vaccine intention. Reliability and confirmatory factor analysis were completed for the 13-item 5C. Comparisons were made between sites and within different demographic groups. Good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.768) was found, with nearly all items loading on their hypothesized domains. Respondents from Ohio had significantly higher complacency and constraints domain scores. Highest acceptance was revealed in females, individuals with a Master's degree or higher, and individuals with the intention to receive a flu vaccine. The adapted 5C is a reasonable tool to measure vaccine intention in English-speaking populations in the US. Certain demographic groups may have lower vaccine acceptance; pharmacists could consider implementing a tool, such as the 5C tool, to identify low acceptance. Given that the 5C tool gathers information on different domains of vaccine acceptance, healthcare professionals could utilize these results to improve trust and vaccine confidence in their patient populations; focused conversations concerning any of the respective domains could best address individual concerns and barriers about vaccinations, notably the COVID-19 and flu vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort on safety data and risk factors associated with unvaccinated status

Background

Safety data reported from the large-scale clinical trials of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine are extremely limited in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The vaccination campaign in this specific population could be difficult due to uncertainty about the adverse events following vaccination. We aimed to assessed the COVID-19 vaccination rate, factors associated with unvaccinated status, and the adverse events following vaccination in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Methods

This is a retrospective study from Ruijin Hospial (Shanghai, China) on an ongoing prospective cohort designed for long-term survival analysis of decompensated cirrhotic patients who recovered from decompensating events or acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) between 2016 and 2018. We assessed the COVID-19 vaccination rate, the number of doses, type of vaccine, safety data, patient-reported reasons for remaining unvaccinated, factors associated with unvaccinated status, and the adverse events of COVID-19 vaccine. Binary logistic regression was used for identifying factors associated with unvaccinated status.

Results

A total of 229 patients with decompensated cirrhosis without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection participated (mean age, 56 ± 12.2 years, 75% male, 65% viral-related cirrhosis). Mode of decompensation were grade II‒III ascites (82.5%), gastroesophageal varices bleeding (7.9%), hepatic encephalopathy (7.9%). Eighty-five participants (37.1%) received at least one dose of vaccination (1 dose: n = 1, 2 doses: n = 65, 3 doses: n = 19) while 62.9% remained unvaccinated. Patient-reported reasons for remaining unvaccinated were mainly fear of adverse events (37.5%) and lack of positive advice from healthcare providers (52.1%). The experience of hepatic encephalopathy (OR = 5.61, 95% CI: 1.24–25.4) or ACLF (OR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.12–8.69) and post-liver transplantation status (OR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.06–5.76) were risk factors of remaining unvaccinated independent of residential areas. The safety analysis demonstrated that 75.3% had no adverse events, 23.6% had non-severe reactions (20% injection-site pain, 1.2% fatigue, 2.4% rash) and 1.2% had a severe event (development of acute decompensation requiring hospitalization).

Conclusions

Patients with decompensated cirrhosis in eastern China are largely remained at unvaccinated status, particularly those with previous episodes of ACLF or hepatic encephalopathy and liver transplantation recipients. Vaccination against COVID-19 in this population is safe.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40249-022-00982-0.