Factors associated with parental COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45.

PURPOSE: This study explored factors associated with parents' attitudes and intentions to seek information about the COVID-19 vaccine for their children (ages 0-18) and intentions to vaccinate their age-eligible children. DESIGN AND METHODS: As part of an anonymous online cross-sectional survey, parents' vaccine attitudes, COVID-19 vaccine intentions for their children, health literacy, health numeracy, and sociodemographic variables were assessed. Multivariable ordered logistic regression models identified factors associated with parents' COVID-19 vaccine intentions for their children. RESULTS: Parents/guardians (n = 963) were mostly White (82.3%), insured (88.0%), and college graduates (57.3%). Men reported higher intentions than women to seek information about the COVID-19 vaccine for their children (p = 0.003) and higher intentions to vaccinate their children (p = 0.049). Parental characteristics associated with increased intentions to have their children vaccinated included higher educational attainment (p < 0.001), more positive general vaccine attitudes (p < 0.001), preference for health information in a language other than English (p = 0.006), higher income (p = 0.048), having health insurance (p = 0.05), health literacy (p = 0.024), and health numeracy (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sociodemographic characteristics including male gender, higher health literacy and numeracy, and language preference are noteworthy factors associated with parental COVID-19 vaccine intentions that could inform the planning and implementation of educational interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Nurses are important sources of trusted information and play an important role in parent/family health education and in understanding myriad factors that may improve attitudes and enhance readiness toward vaccine uptake. Our findings emphasize the potential value of examining tailored/targeted COVID-19 vaccine education according to key influencing factors.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45: A cross-sectional study

To assess how the COVID-19 pandemic affected catch-up HPV vaccination among age-eligible adults (ages 18-45). The current study leverages a national, cross-sectional sample of US adults ages 18-45 years to assess the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to catch-up HPV vaccination in 2021. The sample was restricted to adults intending to receive the HPV vaccine. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the probability of 1) pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption and 2) uncertainty about pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption. Report of ‘no pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption’ served as the reference category. Among adults intending to get the HPV vaccine (n=1,683), 8.6% reported pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption, 14.7% reported uncertainty about vaccination disruption, and 76.7% reported no disruption. Factors associated with higher odds of pandemic-related vaccination disruption included non-English language preference (OR: 3.20;95% CI: 1.99-5.13), being a parent/guardian (OR: 1.77;95% CI: 1.18-2.66), having at least one healthcare visit in the past year (OR: 1.97;95% CI: 1.10-3.53), being up-to-date on the tetanus vaccine (OR: 1.81;95% CI: 1.19-2.75), and being a cancer survivor (OR: 2.57;95% CI: 1.52-4.34). Catch-up HPV vaccination for age-eligible adults is a critical public health strategy for reducing HPV-related cancers. While a small percentage of adults reported pandemic-related disruptions to HPV vaccination, certain adults (e.g., individuals with a non-English language preference and cancer survivors) were more likely to report a disruption. Interventions may be needed that increase accessibility of catch-up HPV vaccination among populations with reduced healthcare access during the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women's Health Care Access: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: There has been limited study of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women's health care access. Our study aims to examine the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19-related disruptions to (1) primary care; (2) gynecologic care; and (3) preventive health care among women. Materials and Methods: We recruited 4,000 participants from a probability-based online panel. We conducted four multinomial logistic regression models, one for each of the study outcomes: (1) primary care access; (2) gynecologic care access; (3) patient-initiated disruptions to preventive visits; and (4) provider-initiated disruptions to preventive visits. Results: The sample included 1,285 women. One in four women (28.5%) reported that the pandemic affected their primary care access. Sexual minority women (SMW) (odds ratios [OR]: 1.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.19-2.33) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women identifying as heterosexual. Cancer survivors (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.25-3.42) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women without a cancer history. About 16% of women reported that the pandemic affected their gynecologic care access. Women with a cancer history (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.35-4.08) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on gynecologic care compared to women without a cancer history. SMW were more likely to report patient- and provider-initiated delays in preventive health care. Other factors that affected health care access included income, insurance status, and having a usual source of care. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted women's health care access and disproportionately affected access among SMW and women with a cancer history, suggesting that targeted interventions may be needed to ensure adequate health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health of Older Primary Care Patients and Their Family Members.

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced mandatory stay-at-home orders and concerns about contracting a virus that impacted the physical and mental health of much of the world's population. This study compared the rates of depression and anxiety in a sample of older primary care patients (aged ≥65 years old) and their family members recruited for a clinical trial before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were dyads enrolled in the Caregiver Outcomes of Alzheimer's Disease Screening (COADS) trial, which included 1,809 dyads of older primary care patients and one of their family members. Mean scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) were measured and compared before and during the pandemic. We found no difference in depression and anxiety among dyads of older primary care patients and their family members recruited before and during COVID-19. Additionally, we found that older primary care patients and family members who reported their income as comfortable had significantly lower depression and anxiety compared to those who reported having not enough to make ends meet. Along with this, older primary care patients with a high school education or less were more likely to have anxiety compared to those with a postgraduate degree. Moreover, our findings support the notion that certain demographics of older primary care patients and family members are at a higher risk for depression and anxiety, indicating who should be targeted for psychological health interventions that can be adapted during COVID-19. Future research should continue monitoring older primary care patients and their family members through the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses: A scoping review.

Background: Vaccinations are successful, cost-effective tools to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Many colleges conduct vaccination campaigns on their campuses for various vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles, mumps, influenza, HPV, and most recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. Implementing these campaigns requires substantial effort and understanding their effectiveness is an important factor in justifying these programs. Aim: This scoping review aims to identify, review, and summarize existing evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses in order to provide evaluation guidance for institutions planning future vaccination campaigns. Methods: Publications that focused on vaccination campaigns on college campuses for students and/or faculty and staff and described their evaluation methods were included in our analysis. A systematic search of the literature identified 2,101 articles. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and references searched, 43 articles were identified for full-text review. Sixteen articles provided evaluation information and were systematically reviewed. Results: Interventions targeted a variety of vaccine-preventable diseases, with the majority either aiming to increase HPV vaccine uptake or vaccinate against meningococcal serogroups. Most studies reported on campaigns that included both educational activities and provided vaccinations. Evaluation methods varied widely. Some studies measured vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine uptake was most commonly measured as a simple count of doses administered. Conclusions: College campus vaccination campaigns are evaluated in multiple ways, with little consistency in how the effectiveness of campaigns are measured. There is a need to develop clear evaluation methods for college vaccination programs, especially how to calculate vaccination rates associated with these efforts.

Perceptions of the ethical permissibility of strict travel restrictions to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Although there has been extensive exploration of public opinion surrounding many non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) aimed at mitigating transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. mask-wearing and social distancing), there has been less discussion of the public's perception of the ethical appropriateness other NPIs. This paper presents the results of a survey of U.S. adults' opinions of the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Our research revealed overall high agreement with the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions, though we saw significant difference across political party affiliation and conservative/liberal ideologies. Other factors associated with agreement with state-to-state travel restrictions included increasing education, increasing income, and both high and low commitment altruism. When considering international travel restrictions, income, education, and low commitment altruism were associated with increased agreement with the ethical permissibility of international travel restrictions. Ethical analysis and implications are explored.

COVID-19 vaccine behaviors and intentions among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 illness, is an important public health tool to reduce hospitalizations and deaths. PURPOSE: This report focuses on intentions and behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccination among United States (U.S.) adults ages 18-45. METHODS: From February 25-March 24, 2021, we conducted an online survey assessing COVID-19 vaccine intentions and behaviors, health beliefs, vaccine attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Participants were adults aged 18-45, living throughout the U.S. with oversampling in Florida, panelists of a research panel company directly or via verified partners, and able to read, write, and understand English. Associations between COVID-19 vaccination uptake, intentions, and other study variables were examined through multivariable logistic and proportional odds regression analyses. RESULTS: Among participants in the final analytic sample (n = 2722), 18% reported having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Approximately 31% of unvaccinated participants reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the next year, whereas 35% reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it were strongly recommended by a healthcare provider. All COVID-19 vaccination outcomes were associated with male gender, sexual minority status, higher levels of education, and previous influenza vaccination. All vaccination intention outcomes were associated with vaccine attitudes and geographic region. Vaccination status and intentions were differentially associated with multiple additional sociodemographic, attitudinal, and/or healthcare experience variables. CONCLUSIONS: Several demographic variables, vaccine attitudes, and healthcare experiences were found to contribute to COVID-19 vaccine receipt and intentions. Targeted efforts are necessary to increase uptake of the vaccine in the U.S.

Factors that differentiate COVID-19 vaccine intentions among Indiana parents: Implications for targeted vaccine promotion.

Given low rates of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine for children 12-17 and 5-11 years old, research is needed to understand parental behaviors and behavioral intentions related to COVID-19 vaccination for their children. In the state of Indiana, we conducted a non-random, online survey of parents or caregivers (N = 10,266) about their COVID-19 vaccine intentions or behaviors, demographic characteristics, and potential motivating reasons for getting the vaccine. In terms of behaviors/intentions, 44.8% of participants indicated they were vaccine acceptors (i.e., had already had their children vaccinated or would as soon as it was possible), 13.0% indicated they were vaccine hesitators (i.e., wanted to wait and see), and 42.2% indicated they were vaccine rejecters (i.e., would not vaccinate or only would if mandated). Compared to vaccine rejecters, vaccine hesitators were more likely to be motivated by perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy, normative influences such as close friends/family who had been vaccinated and a recommendation from a provider, as well as if they were vaccinated themselves. These findings have implications for the development of targeted vaccine promotion strategies, such as social norms messaging and a focus on vaccine safety, in order to increase COVID-19 vaccination for eligible children.

A qualitative study exploring the relationship between mothers' vaccine hesitancy and health beliefs with COVID-19 vaccination intention and prevention during the early pandemic months.

Vaccine hesitancy is a top ten global health threat that can negatively impact COVID-19 vaccine uptake. It is assumed that vaccine refusers hold deep, negative beliefs, while acceptors hold strong, positive beliefs. However, vaccine hesitancy exists along a continuum and is multidimensional, varying by time, place, vaccine, subgroup, and person. Guided by the Health Belief Model and vaccine hesitancy frameworks, the study purpose was to qualitatively explore maternal COVID-19 threat perceptions and willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in light of their expressed vaccine hesitancy toward past school required and routinely recommended vaccines and the HPV vaccine for their children. Researchers conducted twenty-five interviews with US Midwestern mothers during the early COVID-19 pandemic months. Mothers were grouped by vaccine hesitancy categories and thematic analysis was used to analyze the data within and across categories. Results showed that prior vaccine hesitancy attitudes and behavior did not fully capture maternal acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine or perception of COVID-19 threat. Perceptions of COVID-19 threat did influence mothers' decisions about COVID-19 protective behaviors (e.g., handwashing, mask wearing, and distancing). However, mothers were hesitant to accept the COVID-19 vaccine across vaccine hesitancy categories, primarily citing concerns about safety, efficacy, and confusion over conflicting information as barriers to immediate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Findings indicate that mothers cannot be grouped together based on hesitancy about, or acceptance of, other vaccines for purposes of assuming COVID-19 preventive behavior adherence or anticipated COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Mothers’ Sources and Strategies for Managing COVID-19 Uncertainties during the Early Pandemic Months

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges and uncertainties for families. Guided by uncertainty management theory, this study qualitatively explored mothers’ sources of COVID-related uncertainties for their older children and the strategies used to manage their uncertainties. Twenty-five mothers in the U.S. Midwest were interviewed by telephone between March-May 2020 during the early pandemic months. Data indicated four sources of uncertainty: adjustment, threat of COVID-19, COVID-19 information, and social interaction. Protective behaviors used to manage threat of COVID-19 uncertainties (e.g., social distancing and isolation) sometimes unleashed further uncertainties about social interactions with others that mothers were still attempting to manage. The findings suggest theoretical implications of uncertainty management theory as it applies to COVID-19 and practical implications for empowering mothers with tools for support and health literacy skills to understand and act on credible COVID-19 information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Family Communication is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did. METHODS: In May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome. RESULTS: Among participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23-2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88-2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49-2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03-1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36-0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24-0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45-2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.

Public perceptions of the effectiveness of recommended non-pharmaceutical intervention behaviors to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health threat, both in scope and response. With no vaccine available, the public is advised to practice non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including social distancing, mask-wearing, and washing hands. However, little is known about public perceptions of the effectiveness of these measures, and high perceived effectiveness is likely to be critical in order to achieve widespread adoption of NPI. METHODS: In May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among U.S. adults (N = 3,474). The primary outcome was a six-item measure assessing perceived effectiveness of recommended behaviors to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The sample was divided into "higher" and "lower" perceived effectiveness groups. Covariates included demographics, healthcare characteristics, and health beliefs. Variables that were significant at p<0.01 in bivariate analyses were entered into a multivariable logistic regression and a best-fit model was created using a cutoff of p<0.01 to stay in the model. RESULTS: Mean age was 45.5 years and most participants were non-Hispanic White (63%) and female (52.4%). The high perceived effectiveness group was slightly larger than the low perceived effectiveness group (52.7% vs. 47.3%). Almost all health belief variables were significant in the best-fit regression model. COVID-19-related worry (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.02), and perceived threat to physical health (aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.20-1.45) were positively associated with perceived effectiveness while perceived severity of COVID-19 (0.84; 95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and perceived likelihood of infection (0.85; 95% CI = 0.77-0.94) switched directions in the adjusted model and were negatively associated with perceived effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This research indicates people generally believe NPI are effective, but there was variability based on health beliefs and there are mixed rates of engagement in these behaviors. Public health efforts should focus on increasing perceived severity and threat of SARS-CoV-2-related disease, while promoting NPI as effective in reducing threat.

A National Survey Assessing SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intentions: Implications for Future Public Health Communication Efforts

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines under development, research is needed to assess intention to vaccinate. We conducted a survey (N = 3,159) with U.S. adults in May 2020 assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions, intentions with a provider recommendation, and sociodemographic and psychosocial variables. Participants had high SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions (M = 5.23/7-point scale), which increased significantly with a provider recommendation (M = 5.47). Hierarchical linear regression showed that less education and working in health care were associated with lower intent, and liberal political views, altruism, and COVID-19-related health beliefs were associated with higher intent. This work can inform interventions to increase vaccine uptake, ultimately reducing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.