Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine willingness among people incarcerated in 3 Canadian federal prisons: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among people in prison is essential in mitigating future outbreaks. We aimed to determine factors associated with willingness to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before vaccine availability. METHODS: We chose 3 Canadian federal prisons based on their low uptake of influenza vaccines in 2019-2020. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on knowledge, attitude and beliefs toward vaccines. The primary outcome was participant willingness to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, measured using a 5-point Likert scale to the question, "If a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available in prison, how likely are you to get vaccinated?" We calculated the association of independent variables (age, ethnicity, chronic health conditions, 2019-2020 influenza vaccine uptake and prison security level), identified a priori, with vaccine willingness using logistic regression and crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We recruited 240 participants from Mar. 31 to Apr. 19, 2021 (median age 46 years; 19.2% female, 25.8% Indigenous). Of these, 178 (74.2%) were very willing to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Participants who received the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine (adjusted OR 5.20, 95% CI 2.43-12.00) had higher odds of vaccine willingness than those who did not; those who self-identified as Indigenous (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.60) and in medium- or maximum-security prisons (adjusted OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-0.92) had lower odds of vaccine willingness than those who identified as white or those in minimum-security prisons, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Most participants were very willing to receive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 before vaccine roll-out. Vaccine promotion campaigns should target groups with low vaccine willingness (i.e., those who have declined influenza vaccine, identify as Indigenous or reside in high-security prisons).

Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine uptake rates have been historically low in correctional settings. To better understand vaccine hesitancy in these high-risk settings, we explored reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people in federal prisons. METHODS: Three maximum security all-male federal prisons in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario (Canada) were chosen, representing prisons with the highest proportions of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. Using a qualitative descriptive design and purposive sampling, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with incarcerated people who had previously refused at least one COVID-19 vaccine until data saturation was achieved. An inductive-deductive thematic analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted using the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy. RESULTS: Between May 19-July 8, 2021, 14 participants were interviewed (median age: 30 years; n = 7 Indigenous, n = 4 visible minority, n = 3 White). Individual-, interpersonal-, and system-level factors were identified. Three were particularly relevant to the correctional setting: 1) Risk perception: participants perceived that they were at lower risk of COVID-19 due to restricted visits and interactions; 2) Health care services in prison: participants reported feeling "punished" and stigmatized due to strict COVID-19 restrictions, and failed to identify personal benefits of vaccination due to the lack of incentives; 3) Universal distrust: participants expressed distrust in prison employees, including health care providers. INTERPRETATION: Reasons for vaccine refusal among people in prison are multifaceted. Educational interventions could seek to address COVID-19 risk misconceptions in prison settings. However, impact may be limited if trust is not fostered and if incentives are not considered in vaccine promotion.

Barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Canadian correctional institutions have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination given the multiple outbreaks that have occurred since the start of the pandemic. Given historically low vaccine uptake, we aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptability among people incarcerated in federal prisons. METHODS: Three federal prisons in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia (Canada) were chosen based on previously low influenza vaccine uptake among those incarcerated. Using a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse sample (gender, age, and ethnicity) of incarcerated people. An inductive-deductive analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted to identify and categorize barriers and facilitators within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: From March 22-29, 2021, a total of 15 participants (n = 5 per site; n = 5 women; median age = 43 years) were interviewed, including five First Nations people and six people from other minority groups. Eleven (73%) expressed a desire to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, including two who previously refused influenza vaccination. We identified five thematic barriers across three TDF domains: social influences (receiving strict recommendations, believing in conspiracies to harm), beliefs about consequences (believing that infection control measures will not be fully lifted, concerns with vaccine-related side effects), and knowledge (lack of vaccine-specific information), and eight thematic facilitators across five TDF domains: environmental context and resources (perceiving correctional employees as sources of outbreaks, perceiving challenges to prevention measures), social influences (receiving recommendations from trusted individuals), beliefs about consequences (seeking individual and collective protection, believing in a collective "return to normal", believing in individual privileges), knowledge (reassurance about vaccine outcomes), and emotions (having experienced COVID-19-related stress). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of information and misinformation were important barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons. This suggests that educational interventions, delivered by trusted health care providers, may improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake going forward.

Ranking the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada: a priority-setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: When vaccine supplies are anticipated to be limited, necessitating the vaccination of certain groups earlier than others, the assessment of values and preferences of stakeholders is an important component of an ethically sound vaccine prioritization framework. The objective of this study was to conduct a priority-setting exercise to establish an expert stakeholder perspective on the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada. METHODS: The priority-setting exercise included a survey of stakeholders that was conducted from July 22 to Aug. 14, 2020. Stakeholders included clinical and public health expert groups, provincial and territorial committees and national Indigenous groups, patient and community advocacy representatives and experts, health professional associations and federal government departments. Survey results were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 155 stakeholders contacted, 76 surveys were received for a participation rate of 49%. During a period of anticipated initial vaccine scarcity for all pandemic scenarios, stakeholders generally considered the most important vaccination strategy to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. This was followed in importance by strategies to protect health care capacity, minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and protect critical infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: This priority-setting exercise established that there is general alignment in the values and preferences across stakeholder groups: the most important vaccination strategy at the time of limited initial vaccine availability is to protect those who are most vulnerable. The findings of this priority-setting exercise provided a timely expert perspective to guide early public health planning for COVID-19 vaccines.

Navigating inequities: a roadmap out of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed social inequities that rival biological inequities in disease exposure and severity. Merely identifying some inequities without understanding all of them can lead to harmful misrepresentations and deepening disparities. Applying an 'equity lens' to bring inequities into focus without a vision to extinguish them is short-sighted. Interventions to address inequities should be as diverse as the pluralistic populations experiencing them. We present the first validated equity framework applied to COVID-19 that sheds light on the full spectrum of health inequities, navigates their sources and intersections, and directs ethically just interventions. The Equity Matrix also provides a comprehensive map to guide surveillance and research in order to unveil epidemiological uncertainties of novel diseases like COVID-19, recognising that inequities may exist where evidence is currently insufficient. Successfully applied to vaccines in recent years, this tool has resulted in the development of clear, timely and transparent guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Informed by evidence and experience from other vaccine-preventable diseases, this Equity Matrix could be valuable to countries across the social gradient to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by abating the spread of inequities. In the race to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this urgently needed roadmap can effectively and efficiently steer global leadership towards equitable allocation with diverse strategies for diverse inequities. Such a roadmap has been absent from discussions on managing the COVID-19 pandemic, and is critical for our passage out of it.

A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations.

For the successful implementation of population-level recommendations, it is critical to consider the full spectrum of public health science, including clinical and programmatic factors. Current frameworks may identify various factors that should be examined when making evidence-informed vaccine-related recommendations. However, while most immunization guidelines systematically assess clinical factors, such as efficacy and safety of vaccines, there is no published framework outlining how to systematically assess programmatic factors, such as the ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability of recommendations. We have addressed this gap with the development of the EEFA (Ethics, Equity Feasibility, Acceptability) Framework, supported by evidence-informed tools, including Ethics Integrated Filters, Equity Matrix, Feasibility Matrix, and an Acceptability Matrix. The Framework and tools are based on five years of environmental scans, systematic reviews and surveys, and refined by expert and stakeholder consultations and feedback. For each programmatic factor, the EEFA Framework summarizes the minimum threshold for consideration and when further in-depth analysis may be required, which aspects of the factor should be considered, how to assess the factor using the supporting evidence-informed tools, and who should be consulted to complete the assessment. Research, particularly in the fields of vaccine acceptability and equity, has validated the utility and comprehensiveness of the tools. The Framework has been successfully used in Canada for clear, timely, transparent vaccine guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Applying the EEFA Framework allows for the systematic consideration of the spectrum of public health science without a delay in recommendations, complementing existing decision-making frameworks. This Framework will therefore be useful for advisory groups worldwide to integrate critical factors that could impact the successful and timely implementation of comprehensive, transparent recommendations, and will further the global objective of developing practical and evidence-informed immunization policies.