Vaccine mistrust among Black individuals in Canada: The major role of health literacy, conspiracy theories, and racial discrimination in the healthcare system.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected Black communities in Canada in terms of infection and mortality rates compared to the general population. Despite these facts, Black communities are among those with the highest level of COVID-19 vaccine mistrust (COVID-19 VM). We collected novel data to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics and factors associated with COVID-19 VM among Black communities in Canada. A survey was conducted among a representative sample of 2002 Black individuals (51.66% women) aged 14-94 years (M = 29.34; SD = 10.13) across Canada. Vaccine mistrust was assessed as the dependent variable and conspiracy theories, health literacy, major racial discrimination in healthcare settings, and sociodemographic characteristics of participants were assessed as independent variables. Those with a history of COVID-19 infection had higher COVID-19 VM score (M = 11.92, SD = 3.88) compared to those with no history of infection (M = 11.25, SD = 3.83), t (1999) = -3.85, p < 0.001. Participants who reported having experienced major racial discrimination in healthcare settings were more likely to report COVID-19 VM (M = 11.92, SD = 4.03) than those who were not (M = 11.36, SD = 3.77), t (1999) = -3.05, p = 0.002. Results also showed significant differences for age, education level, income, marital status, provinces, language, employment status, and religion. The final hierarchical linear regression showed that conspiracy beliefs (B = 0.69, p < 0.001) were positively associated with COVID-19 VM, while health literacy (B = -0.05, p = 0.002) was negatively associated with it. The mediated moderation model showed that conspiracy theories completely mediated the association between racial discrimination and vaccine mistrust (B = 1.71, p < 0.001). This association was also completely moderated by the interaction between racial discrimination and health literacy (B = 0.42, p = 0.008), indicating that despite having a high level of health literacy, those who experienced major racial discrimination in health services developed vaccine mistrust. This first study on COVID-19 VM exclusively among Black individuals in Canada provides data that can significantly impact the development of tools, trainings, strategies, and programs to make the health systems free of racism and increase their confidence in vaccination for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Prevalence and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness in Canada: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine unwillingness in Canada. Eleven databases were searched in March 2022. The pooled prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness was estimated. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Out of 667 studies screened, 86 full-text articles were reviewed, and 30 were included in the systematic review. Twenty-four articles were included in the meta-analysis; 12 for the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (42.3% [95% CI, 33.7%-51.0%]) and 12 for vaccine unwillingness (20.1% [95% CI, 15.2%-24.9%]). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in females (18.3% [95% CI, 12.4%-24.2%]) than males (13.9% [95% CI, 9.0%-18.8%]), and in rural (16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%-19.7%]) versus urban areas (14.1% [95%CI, 9.9%-18.3%]). Vaccine unwillingness was higher in females (19.9% [95% CI, 11.0%-24.8%]) compared with males (13.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-19.2%]), non-White individuals (21.7% [95% CI, 16.2%-27.3%]) than White individuals (14.8% [95% CI, 11.0%-18.5%]), and secondary or less (24.2% [95% CI, 18.8%-29.6%]) versus postsecondary education (15.9% [95% CI, 11.6%-20.2%]). Factors related to racial disparities, gender, education level, and age are discussed.

A Systematic Review on Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Communities in Canada: Critical Issues and Research Failures.

Black communities have been disproportionately impacted by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada, in terms of both number of infections and mortality rates. Yet, according to early studies, vaccine hesitancy appears to be higher in Black communities. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities in Canada. Peer-reviewed studies published from 11 March 2020 to 26 July 2022, were searched through eleven databases: APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Cairn.info, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (ProQuest), CPI.Q (Gale OneFile), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Érudit, Global Health (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). Eligible studies were published in French or English and had empirical data on the prevalence or factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in samples or subsamples of Black people. Only five studies contained empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Black individuals and were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Black individuals represented 1.18% (n = 247) of all included study samples (n = 20,919). Two of the five studies found that Black individuals were more hesitant to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to White individuals, whereas the other three found no significant differences. The studies failed to provide any evidence of factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Despite national concerns about vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, a color-blind approach is still predominant in Canadian health research. Of about 40 studies containing empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Canada, only five contained data on Black communities. None analyzed factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Policies and strategies to strengthen health research in Black communities and eliminate the color-blind approach are discussed.

Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is crucial to control the COVID-19 pandemic; saliva testing has been proposed as a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. We sought to compare the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab in the pediatric population, and to determine the optimum time of testing for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diagnostic study in Ottawa, Canada, from Jan. 19 to Mar. 26, 2021. Children aged 3-17 years were eligible if they exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, had been identified as a high-risk or close contact to someone confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had travelled outside Canada in the previous 14 days. Participants provided both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Saliva was collected using a self-collection kit (DNA Genotek, OM-505) or a sponge-based kit (DNA Genotek, ORE-100) if they could not provide a saliva sample into a tube. RESULTS: Among 1580 paired nasopharyngeal and saliva tests, 60 paired samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Forty-four (73.3%) were concordant-positive results and 16 (26.6%) were discordant, among which 8 were positive only on nasopharyngeal swab and 8 were positive only on saliva testing. The sensitivity of saliva was 84.6% (95% confidence interval 71.9%-93.1%). INTERPRETATION: Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is less invasive and shows similar detection of SARS-CoV-2 to nasopharyngeal swabs. It may therefore provide a feasible alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

Salivary testing of COVID-19: evaluation of serological testing following positive salivary results.

BACKGROUND: Salivary detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been proposed as an alternative to nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. Our group previously published a study demonstrating that both testing methods identified SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methodology. We therefore conducted a follow-up study using antibody testing to evaluate the accuracy of saliva versus swabs for COVID-19 detection and the durability of antibody response. METHODS: Venous blood samples were collected from consenting participants and the presence of serum antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated on a large, automated immunoassay platform by the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 qualitative assay (Roche Diagnostics, Laval Quebec). Individuals with a serum antibody cut-off index (COI) ≥ 1.0 were considered positive. RESULTS: In asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients with a previously positive standard swab and/or saliva SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test, 42 demonstrated antibodies with 13 patients positive by swab alone, and 8 patients positive by saliva alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their status as 'current standard' for COVID-19 testing, these findings highlight limitations of PCR-based tests.