Science, healthcare system, and government effectiveness perception and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy in a global sample: an analytical cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are complex; how perceptions of the effectiveness of science, healthcare and government impact personal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is unclear, despite all three domains providing critical roles in development, funding and provision, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine. OBJECTIVE: To estimate impact of perception of science, healthcare systems, and government along with sociodemographic, psychosocial, and cultural characteristics on vaccine acceptance. DESIGN: We conducted a global nested analytical cross-sectional study of how the perceptions of healthcare, government and science systems have impacted COVID-19 on vaccine acceptance. SETTING: Global Facebook, Instagram and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) users from 173 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 7411 people aged 18 years or over, and able to read English, Spanish, Italian, or French. MEASUREMENTS: We used Χ2 analysis and logistic regression-derived adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to evaluate the relationship between effectiveness perceptions and vaccine acceptance controlling for other factors. We used natural language processing and thematic analysis to analyse the role of vaccine-related narratives in open-ended explanations of effectiveness. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding, attitude toward science was a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance, more so than other attitudes, demographic, psychosocial or COVID-19-related variables (aOR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5). The rationale for science effectiveness was dominated by vaccine narratives, which were uncommon in other domains. LIMITATIONS: This study did not include participants from countries where Facebook and Amazon mTurk are not available, and vaccine acceptance reflected intention rather than actual behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: As our findings show, vaccine-related issues dominate public perception of science's impact around COVID-19, and this perception of science relates strongly to the decision to obtain vaccination once available.

Social media study of public opinions on potential COVID-19 vaccines: informing dissent, disparities, and dissemination.

Background The current development of vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unprecedented. Little is known, however, about the nuanced public opinions on the vaccines on social media. Methods We adopted a human-guided machine learning framework using more than six million tweets from almost two million unique Twitter users to capture public opinions on the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, classifying them into three groups: pro-vaccine, vaccine-hesitant, and anti-vaccine. After feature inference and opinion mining, 10,945 unique Twitter users were included in the study population. Multinomial logistic regression and counterfactual analysis were conducted. Results Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were more likely to hold polarized opinions on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, either pro-vaccine ( B=0.40,SE=0.08,P<0.001,OR=1.49;95%CI=1.26--1.75 ) or anti-vaccine ( B=0.52,SE=0.06,P<0.001,OR=1.69;95%CI=1.49--1.91 ). People who have the worst personal pandemic experience were more likely to hold the anti-vaccine opinion ( B=-0.18,SE=0.04,P<0.001,OR=0.84;95%CI=0.77--0.90 ). The United States public is most concerned about the safety, effectiveness, and political issues regarding vaccines for COVID-19, and improving personal pandemic experience increases the vaccine acceptance level. Conclusion Opinion on COVID-19 vaccine uptake varies across people of different characteristics.

Risk of COVID-19-related bullying, harassment and stigma among healthcare workers: an analytical cross-sectional global study.

OBJECTIVES: Essential healthcare workers (HCW) uniquely serve as both COVID-19 healers and, potentially, as carriers of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed COVID-19-related stigma and bullying against HCW controlling for social, psychological, medical and community variables. DESIGN: We nested an analytical cross-sectional study of COVID-19-related stigma and bullying among HCW within a larger mixed-methods effort assessing COVID-19-related lived experience and impact. Adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CIs evaluated the association between working in healthcare settings and experience of COVID-19-related bullying and stigma, controlling for confounders. Thematic qualitative analysis provided insight into lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying. SETTING: We recruited potential participants in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) through Amazon Mechanical Turk's online workforce and Facebook. PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 7411 people from 173 countries who were aged 18 years or over. FINDINGS: HCW significantly experienced more COVID-19-related bullying after controlling for the confounding effects of job-related, personal, geographic and sociocultural variables (aOR: 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0). HCW more frequently believed that people gossip about others with COVID-19 (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.6) and that people with COVID-19 lose respect in the community (OR: 2.3; 95% CI 2.0 to 2.7), both which elevate bullying risk (OR: 2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.2, and OR: 3.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 4.2, respectively). The lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying relates frequently to public identities as HCW traverse through the community, intersecting with other domains (eg, police, racism, violence). INTERPRETATION: After controlling for a range of confounding factors, HCW are significantly more likely to experience COVID-19-related stigma and bullying, often in the intersectional context of racism, violence and police involvement in community settings.