COVID-19 vaccine uptake before and after a vaccine mandate at a major academic hospital: Trends by race/ethnicity and level of patient contact

OBJECTIVES

To assess vaccine coverage rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among Health care Personnel (HCP) and demographic characteristics associated with vaccine uptake Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducted among 10,889 hospital employees followed from Dec 16, 2020 - October 31, 2021, at a large academic hospital in Philadelphia.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Time to COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine series completion rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and level of patient contact/occupational group.

RESULTS

The vaccination series completion rate was 86.0% prior to mandate announcement, and increased to 98.7% after mandate implementation. Rates before mandate announcement were highest among Asians (96.2%), Whites (94.0%), males (89.7%), employees ≥ 65 years of age (95.2%), and employees with direct patient care (physicians, 99.0%, and nurses, 93.3%). Hospital educational initiatives (including Town Halls and discussions with Black and Hispanic employees with the lowest vaccination rates) appeared to improve uptake. The largest increase in series completion after mandate announcement occurred among Blacks, those of other/multiracial backgrounds, and Hispanics (35.6%, 22.4%, and 10.8%, respectively) as well as those with some or no direct patient contact (24.5% and 18.3%, respectively). Medical or religious exemptions were approved for 64 (<0.6%) employees and 38 (<0.4%) left their positions (8 voluntary, 30 involuntary) specifically due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. No clinically meaningful differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity for those who were vaccinated under the mandate versus those who left their positions were noted.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that while mandates may be challenging to institutions and enforcement unpopular, they play an important role in reducing hesitancy and securing high vaccination rates among HCP, a group at high risk of COVID-19 given their employment and who can be a source of disease transmission to patients.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes towards mandates in a nationally representative U.S. sample

Widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination is vital to curtailing the pandemic, yet rates remain suboptimal in the U.S. Vaccine mandates have previously been successful, but are controversial. An April 2021 survey of a nationally representative sample (N = 1208) examined vaccine uptake, attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Sixty-seven percent were vaccine acceptors, 14% wait-and-see, and 19% non-acceptors. Compared to wait-and-see and non-acceptors, acceptors were more likely to have a household member over age 65, have received a flu shot, have positive COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and view COVID-19 vaccination as beneficial. Mandate support was higher among respondents who were vaccine acceptors, had positive views about COVID-19 vaccines, believed in COVID-19 preventive strategies, perceived COVID-19 as severe, were liberal, resided in the Northeast, were non-White, and had incomes < $75,000. Public health campaigns should target attitudes that appear to drive hesitancy and prepare for varying mandate support based on demographics, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and the scope of the mandate.

Healthcare professional and professional stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine mandates in Switzerland: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates.

METHODS

A national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members.

RESULTS

1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend < 0.001). Physicians (p < .001) and pharmacists (p < .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement.

CONCLUSION

In Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

Vaccine mandates on childcare entry without conscientious objection exemptions: A quasi-experimental panel study

OBJECTIVES

Examine the effect of No Jab No Play policies, which linked vaccine status to childcare service entry without allowing for personal belief exemptions, on immunisation coverage.

STUDY DESIGN

Immunisation coverage rates from the Australian Immunisation Register were linked to regional level covariates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics between January 2016 and December 2019. Differential timings of policy rollouts across states were used to assess changes in coverage with the implementation of policies with generalised linear models. Quantile regression and subgroup analysis were also conducted to explore the variation in policy responses.

RESULTS

Baseline mean vaccination rates in 2016 were 93.4% for one-year-olds, 91.2% for two-year-olds and 93.2% for five-year-olds. Increases in coverage post-policy were significant but small, at around 1% across age groups, with larger increases in two and five-year-olds. Accounting for aggregate time trends and regional characteristics, implementation of the policies was associated with improved full immunisation coverage rates for age one (post-year 1: 0.15% [95 %CI-0.23; 0.52]; post-year 2: 0.56% [95 %CI 0.05; 1.07]), age two (post-year 1: 0.49 [95 %CI: 0.00; 0.97]; post-year 2: 1.15% [95 %CI: 0.53; 1.77], and age five (post-year 1: 0.38% [95 %CI 0.08; 0.67]; post-year 2: 0.71% [95 %CI 0.25; 1.16]. The policy effect was dispersed and insignificant at the lowest quantiles of the distribution of immunisation coverage, and smaller and insignificant in the highest socioeconomic areas.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that No Jab No Play policies had a small positive impact on immunisation coverage. This policy effect varied according to prior distribution of coverage and socio-economic status. Childcare access equity and unresponsiveness in high socioeconomic areas remain concerns.

Attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal

AIMS

Investigating attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal in an area with insufficient vaccination coverage may help health authorities to assess which strategies for increasing vaccination coverage are appropriate. This study examines attitudes to vaccine mandates and asks questions regarding what kinds of sanctions could legitimately result from vaccination refusal. It seeks to find out if people's attitudes towards mandates and towards sanctions for vaccination refusal are related to their attitudes to vaccines and the degree of trust they feel towards health care professionals and health care authorities. The study also discusses how the observed attitudes towards mandates may be related to perceptions of autonomy, responsibility, and equitability.

METHODS

Data collection was carried out in Finland through an online survey in a region with suboptimal vaccine uptake. Statistical analysis was conducted on a sample of 1101 respondents, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural regression analysis.

RESULTS

Persons hold different views on mandates and sanctions. Importantly, the persons who support vaccination mandates and sanctions for vaccination refusal are to a great degree the same people who have positive attitudes to vaccines and high trust in health care professionals and health authorities.

CONCLUSION

Trust is a key factor which has a bearing on people's attitudes towards mandates and sanctions for noncompliance. A focus on the reasons for lack of trust, and on how to enhance trust, is a more feasible long-term way (than mandates) to promote large- scale compliance with childhood vaccine programmes in the studied country context.

Employer requirements and COVID-19 vaccination and attitudes among healthcare personnel in the U.S.: Findings from National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module, August - September 2021

INTRODUCTION

Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine.

METHODS

Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements.

RESULTS

Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%).

CONCLUSION

In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.

Ethics and Effectiveness of US COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Vaccination Passports: A Review

BACKGROUND

The highest-income countries procured 50 times as many COVID-19 vaccines as low-income countries, a global health inequity that resulted in only 4.6% of the poorest 5th of the world receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. High-income countries are considering vaccine mandates and passports to contain the spread of COVID-19. This study is a curated discourse aimed at examining how vaccine mandates and passports may impact global vaccine equity from an ethics perspective.

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review adapted for a debate.

METHODS

In November 2021, we conducted a review of studies examining global vaccine mandates for an upper-level global health course at Northeastern University, Boston, United States (U.S.). In total, 19 upper-level students, one research assistant, and one instructor participated in the data collection, analysis, and discussion.

RESULTS

The review showed vaccine mandates are ethical and effective if autonomy-centered alternatives like soft mandates are first exhausted. Unwarranted stringent public health measures degrade public trust. In the U.S. alone, COVID-19-related deaths hovered above 300 000 before COVID-19 vaccination began in mid-December 2020. Since then, the number of COVID-19 deaths more than doubled, despite the wide availability of the vaccine. For many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) vaccines are not available or easily accessible. Global collaboration to facilitate vaccine availability in LMICs should be a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to get as many people as possible vaccinated to return to some normality. However, vaccine mandates and passports need to be used only sparingly, especially when other options have been exhausted.

"If a rabbi did say 'you have to vaccinate,' we wouldn't": Unveiling the secular logics of religious exemption and opposition to vaccination

Maintaining 'faith' in vaccination has emerged as a public health challenge amidst outbreaks of preventable disease among religious minorities and rising claims to 'exemption' from vaccine mandates. Outbreaks of measles and coronavirus have been particularly acute among Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in North America, Europe and Israel, yet no comparative studies have been conducted to discern the shared and situated influences on vaccine decision-making. This paper synthesises qualitative research into vaccine decision-making among Orthodox Jews in the United Kingdom and Israel during the 2014-15 and 2018-19 measles epidemics, and 2020-21 coronavirus pandemic. The methods integrate 66 semi-structured informal interviews conducted with parents, formal and informal healthcare practitioners, and religious leaders, as well as analysis of tailored non-vaccination advocacy events and literature. The paper argues that the discourse of 'religious' exemption and opposition to vaccination obscures the diverse practices and philosophies that inform vaccine decisions, and how religious law and leaders form a contingent influence. Rather than viewing religion as the primary framework through which vaccine decisions are made, Orthodox Jewish parents were more concerned with safety, trust and choice in similar ways to 'secular' logics of non-vaccination. Yet, religious frameworks were mobilised, and at times politicised, to suit medico-legal discourse of 'exemption' from coercive or mandatory vaccine policies. By conceptualising tensions around protection as 'political immunities,' the paper offers a model to inform social science understandings of how health, law and religion intersect in contemporary vaccine opposition.

The impact of school-entry mandates on social inequalities in human papillomavirus vaccination

Fundamental cause theory (FCT) is influential for explaining the enduring relationship between social position and health, yet few empirical studies test FCT's contention that policy supporting the equal distribution of interventions across populations can help reduce health inequalities. Following human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine approval, complex socioeconomic and racial-ethnic inequalities emerged in distinct stages of the diffusion of this health innovation. Virginia and the District of Columbia were the first U.S. jurisdictions to implement school-entry HPV vaccination mandates for sixth-grade girls, offering an opportunity to test whether inequalities in HPV vaccination are mitigated by policy that seeks to standardize the age of vaccine administration and remove barriers to knowledge about the vaccine. Using data from the 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 National Immunization Survey-Teen (N = 4579) and a triple-difference approach, this study tests whether vaccine mandates are associated with smaller socioeconomic and racial-ethnic inequalities in health provider recommendation and vaccine uptake. It finds mandates were associated with improvements in provider recommendation and vaccine uptake for some socioeconomic and racial-ethnic groups. However, mandates also likely led to a decline in HPV vaccine series completion overall. Implications of these findings for informing FCT and vaccination policy are discussed.