Effectiveness of chatbots on COVID vaccine confidence and acceptance in Thailand, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Chatbots have become an increasingly popular tool in the field of health services and communications. Despite chatbots' significance amid the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have performed a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of chatbots in improving vaccine confidence and acceptance. In Thailand, Hong Kong, and Singapore, from February 11th to June 30th, 2022, we conducted multisite randomised controlled trials (RCT) on 2,045 adult guardians of children and seniors who were unvaccinated or had delayed vaccinations. After a week of using COVID-19 vaccine chatbots, the differences in vaccine confidence and acceptance were compared between the intervention and control groups. Compared to non-users, fewer chatbot users reported decreased confidence in vaccine effectiveness in the Thailand child group [Intervention: 4.3 % vs. Control: 17%, P = 0.023]. However, more chatbot users reported decreased vaccine acceptance [26% vs. 12%, P = 0.028] in Hong Kong child group and decreased vaccine confidence in safety [29% vs. 10%, P = 0.041] in Singapore child group. There was no statistically significant change in vaccine confidence or acceptance in the Hong Kong senior group. Employing the RE-AIM framework, process evaluation indicated strong acceptance and implementation support for vaccine chatbots from stakeholders, with high levels of sustainability and scalability. This multisite, parallel RCT study on vaccine chatbots found mixed success in improving vaccine confidence and acceptance among unvaccinated Asian subpopulations. Further studies that link chatbot usage and real-world vaccine uptake are needed to augment evidence for employing vaccine chatbots to advance vaccine confidence and acceptance.

Vaccines and therapeutics for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.

COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal and Delay among Adults in Italy: Evidence from the OBVIOUS Project, a National Survey in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy was defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019 as a major threat to global health. In Italy, reluctance to receive vaccines is a widespread phenomenon that was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic by fear and mistrust in government. This study aims to depict different profiles and characteristics of people reluctant to vaccinate, focusing on the drivers of those who are in favor of and those who are opposed to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: A sample of 10,000 Italian residents was collected. A survey on COVID-19 vaccination behavior and possible determinants of vaccine uptake, delay, and refusal was administered to participants through a computer-assisted web interviewing method. RESULTS: In our sample, 83.2% stated that they were vaccinated as soon as possible ("vaccinators"), 8.0% delayed vaccination ("delayers"), and 6.7% refused to be vaccinated ("no-vaccinators"). In general, the results show that being female, aged between 25 and 64, with an education level less than a high school diploma or above a master's degree, and coming from a rural area were characteristics significantly associated with delaying or refusing COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, it was found that having minimal trust in science and/or government (i.e., 1 or 2 points on a scale from 1 to 10), using alternative medicine as the main source of treatment, and intention to vote for certain parties were characteristics associated with profiles of "delayers" or "no-vaccinators". Finally, the main reported motivation for delaying or not accepting vaccination was fear of vaccine side effects (55.0% among delayers, 55.6% among no-vaccinators). CONCLUSION: In this study, three main profiles of those who chose to be vaccinated are described. Since those who are in favor of vaccines and those who are not usually cluster in similar sociodemographic categories, we argue that findings from this study might be useful to policy makers when shaping vaccine strategies and choosing policy instruments.

Embracing context: Lessons from designing a dialogue-based intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

Dialogue with people who are vaccine hesitant has been recommended as a method to increase vaccination uptake. The process of cultivating dialogue is shaped by the context in which it occurs, yet the development of interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy with dialogue often overlooks the role of context and favors relatively fixed solutions. This reflexive paper shares three key lessons related to context for dialogue-based interventions. These lessons emerged during a participatory research project to develop a pilot intervention to create open dialogue among healthcare workers in Belgium about COVID-19 vaccination concerns. Through a mixed methods study consisting of in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys, we engaged healthcare workers in the design, testing, and evaluation of a digital platform featuring text-based and video-based (face-to-face) interactions. The lessons are: (1) what dialogue means, entails, and requires can vary for a population and context, (2) inherent tension exists between helping participants voice (and overcome) their concerns and exposing them to others' ideas that may exacerbate those concerns, and (3) interactional exchanges (e.g., with peers or experts) that matter to participants may shape the dialogue in terms of its content and form. We suggest that having a discovery-orientation-meaning to work not only inductively and iteratively but also reflexively-is a necessary part of the development of dialogue-based interventions. Our case also sheds light on the influences between: dialogue topic/content, socio-political landscape, population, intervention aim, dialogue form, ethics, researcher position, and types of interactional exchanges.

Strategic silences, eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Polarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients.Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage. METHODS: Interviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients. RESULTS: Most participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others' openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments. DISCUSSION: Belgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in "strategic silences" around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium's, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.

A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continued to mutate and spread in 2022 despite the introduction of safe, effective vaccines and medications. Vaccine hesitancy remains substantial, fueled in part by misinformation. Our third study of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among 23,000 respondents in 23 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States), surveyed from 29 June to 10 July 2022, found willingness to accept vaccination at 79.1%, up 5.2% from June 2021. Hesitancy increased in eight countries, however, ranging from 1.0% (United Kingdom) to 21.1% (South Africa). Almost one in eight (12.1%) vaccinated respondents are hesitant about booster doses. Overall support for vaccinating children under 18 years of age increased slightly but declined among parents who were personally hesitant. Almost two in five (38.6%) respondents reported paying less attention to new COVID-19 information than previously, and support for vaccination mandates decreased. Almost a quarter (24%) of those who became ill reported taking medications to combat COVID-19 symptoms. Vaccination remains a cornerstone of the COVID-19 pandemic response, but broad public support remains elusive. These data can be used by health system decisionmakers, practitioners, advocates and researchers to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy more effectively.

Examining the effects of psychological reactance on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: Comparison of two countries.

Background: Despite the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines being necessary to achieve ample immunization rates and, in turn, put an end to the global pandemic, vaccine hesitancy and refusal are on the rise. To detect and address the concerns of those who are hesitant, it is critical to identify all potential factors behind vaccine decision-making in order to devise strategies to enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake. Methods: We retrieved a total of 742 and 685 completed questionnaires from Iran and France, respectively; after initial cleaning and data screening, the number of usable questionnaires dropped to 714 and 664. We evaluate the distinct vaccination and lockdown restrictions in Iran and France and used multi-group analysis to evaluate structural path models of French and Iranian people, revealing a significant difference between the two groups in vaccination-related decisions. This empirical study is one of the first to employ the measurement invariance was evaluated using the measurement invariance for composite (MICOM) approach in testing partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) measurement invariance and one of the first to use both Henseler's MGA and Henseler's permutation method to perform multi-group analysis (MGA). Results: MGA revealed significant differences in the effects of influential factors on vaccine acceptance across France and Iran. In other words, many determining factors are likely to be context-dependent. The study revealed that reactance (due to restrictions and perceived scarcity) and financial strain significantly influenced COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake among Iranians; however, among the French, confidence, and convenience were far more influential. Conclusions: These cross-cultural differences point to the importance of conducting additional research in this area that directly compares various effects across countries. Each country's public health authorities and policymakers could use these insights to develop more targeted strategies and, in turn, boost vaccination rates among the public.

Vaccines and the social amplification of risk.

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) named "Vaccine Hesitancy" one of the top 10 threats to global health. Shortly afterward, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as the world's predominant health concern. COVID-19 vaccines of several types have been developed, tested, and partially deployed with remarkable speed; vaccines are now the primary control measure and hope for a return to normalcy. However, hesitancy concerning these vaccines, along with resistance to masking and other control measures, remains a substantial obstacle. The previous waves of vaccine hesitancy that led to the WHO threat designation, together with recent COVID-19 experience, provide a window for viewing new forms of social amplification of risk (SAR). Not surprisingly, vaccines provide fertile ground for questions, anxieties, concerns, and rumors. These appear in new globalized hyperconnected communications landscapes and in the context of complex human (social, economic, and political) systems that exhibit evolving concerns about vaccines and authorities. We look at drivers, impacts, and implications for vaccine initiatives in several recent historical examples and in the current efforts with COVID-19 vaccination. Findings and insights were drawn from the Vaccine Confidence Project's decade long monitoring of media and social media and its related research efforts. The trends in vaccine confidence and resistance have implications for updating the social amplification of risk framework (SARF); in turn, SARF has practical implications for guiding efforts to alleviate vaccine hesitancy and to mitigate harms from intentional and unintentional vaccine scares.

A mixed methods study of health care professionals' attitudes towards vaccination in 15 countries.

Background: Health care professionals are widely considered to be the most trusted source of information on vaccine-related topics. However, several are reporting their own hesitancy around certain vaccines, influencing their intention to vaccinate themselves as well as influencing their recommendations to their patients and target population. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used including an online survey (n = 1,504) in 15 countries which aimed to determine drivers of HCPs vaccine confidence and examine how these drivers vary across nations. Thirty in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 HCPs in a subset of three countries (France, Greece and Hungry) to explore barriers to HCPs vaccine uptake and their role in addressing vaccine hesitancy among patients.Findings.The survey's regression analysis identified that nurses/midwives and HCPs from Hungary, Italy, Romania and Switzerland were less confident in the safety, importance or effectiveness of vaccines in general. Morocco (35%), Turkey (53%) and Greece (69%) reported the lowest influenza vaccination coverage among HCPs. Morocco also reported the lowest rates of HCPs who were "highly likely" to recommend MMR vaccine (34%), HPV vaccine (31%) and Covid-19 vaccines (29%). More than third of HCPs reported a lack of trust in health authorities and in the information they provide. Thematic analysis revealed that concerns over the risk of side-effects associated with vaccines, preference for natural immunity, whether it was necessary to be vaccinated against influenza every year, not having any chronic disease risk factors, and vaccines mandates as the key barriers to HCPs vaccination against influenza and Covid-19. Conclusion: HCPs have an important role in vaccination and their confidence in vaccination and health authorities must be improved as this may affect their uptake of vaccines and influence their recommendations to their patients. Investigating the impact of political, socio-economic and cultural contexts on concerns about vaccination among HCPs is also necessary.

Effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention compared with user-paid vaccination to improve influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement among children and older adults in China: a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: China has low seasonal influenza vaccination rates among priority populations. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a pay-it-forward strategy to increase influenza vaccine uptake in rural, suburban, and urban settings in China. METHODS: We performed a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial to examine the effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention (a free influenza vaccine and an opportunity to donate financially to support vaccination of other individuals) to increase influenza vaccine uptake compared with standard-of-care user-paid vaccination among children (aged between 6 months and 8 years) and older people (≥60 years) in China. Recruitment took place in the standard-of-care group until the expected sample size was reached and then in the pay-it-forward group in primary care clinics from a rural site (Yangshan), a suburban site (Zengcheng), and an urban site (Tianhe). Participants were introduced to the influenza vaccine by project staff using a pamphlet about influenza vaccination and were either asked to pay out-of-pocket at the standard market price (US$8·5-23·2; standard-of-care group) or to donate any amount anonymously (pay-it-forward group). Participants had to be eligible to receive an influenza vaccine and to have not received an influenza vaccine in the past year. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake. Secondary outcomes were vaccine confidence and costs (from the health-care provider perspective). Regression methods compared influenza vaccine uptake and vaccine confidence between the two groups. This trial is registered with ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000040048. FINDINGS: From Sept 21, 2020, to March 3, 2021, 300 enrolees were recruited from patients visiting three primary care clinics. 55 (37%) of 150 people in the standard-of-care group (40 [53%] of 75 children and 15 [20%] of 75 older adults) and 111 (74%) of 150 in the pay-it-forward group (66 [88%] of 75 children and 45 [60%] of 75 older adults) received an influenza vaccine. People in the pay-it-forward group were more likely to receive an influenza vaccine compared with those in the standard-of-care group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6·7 [95% CI 2·7-16·6] among children and 5·0 [2·3-10·8] among older adults). People in the pay-it-forward group had greater confidence in vaccine safety (aOR 2·2 [95% CI 1·2-3·9]), importance (3·1 [1·6-5·9]), and effectiveness (3·1 [1·7-5·7]). In the pay-it-forward group, 107 (96%) of 111 participants donated money for subsequent vaccinations. The pay-it-forward group had a lower economic cost (calculated as the cost without subtraction of donations) per person vaccinated (US$45·60) than did the standard-of-care group ($64·67). INTERPRETATION: The pay-it-forward intervention seemed to be effective in improving influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement. Our data have implications for prosocial interventions to enhance influenza vaccine uptake in countries where influenza vaccines are available for a fee. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research.

"Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA": Author correction

Reports an error in "Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA" by Sahil Loomba, Alexandre de Figueiredo, Simon J. Piatek, Kristen de Graaf and Heidi J. Larson (Nature Human Behaviour, 2021[Mar], Vol 5[3], 337-348). In the original article, reference number of the ethics application approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee was incorrectly quoted. The correct number is 22647. Also, debriefing information was originally only provided in Supplementary Information. The following sentence has been added for clarification to the Methods section in the updated article: "All respondents exposed to misinformation were debriefed after the survey;debriefing information can be found in the questionnaire included in Supplementary Information." These errors have been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of this article. (The following of the original article appeared in record 2021-29746-012). [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 5(7) of Nature Human Behaviour (see record 2021-69306-024). In the original article, the subscript for the gamma element in equation (7) should have been k rather than j;i.e., it should read as given in erratum. The error has been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of this article.] Widespread acceptance of a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be the next major step in fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but achieving high uptake will be a challenge and may be impeded by online misinformation. To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others. Here we show that in both countries-as of September 2020-fewer people would 'definitely' take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity, and that, relative to factual information, recent misinformation induced a decline in intent of 6.2 percentage points (95th percentile interval 3.9 to 8.5) in the UK and 6.4 percentage points (95th percentile interval 4.0 to 8.8) in the USA among those who stated that they would definitely accept a vaccine. We also find that some sociodemographic groups are differentially impacted by exposure to misinformation. Finally, we show that scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Childhood COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and preference from caregivers and healthcare workers in China: A survey experiment.

With approval of more COVID-19 vaccines for children, vaccine attributes may influence parental acceptance and choices. We aimed to assess effects of vaccine attributes and information on herd immunity on childhood COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. A survey experiment was conducted with caregivers of children aged 6 months to 11 years old and health care workers (HCWs) in China from September 14 to November 18, 2021. Respondents were randomly assigned to receive differing information on herd immunity (> 80% of the entire population must be vaccinated; or no information). Respondents then completed eight discrete choice tasks to assess vaccine acceptance based on attributes. 2331 (90.07%) of 2588 surveyed caregivers and 1576 (92.71%) of 1700 surveyed HCWs would accept COVID-19 vaccination for children, respectively. High Odds Ratios (OR) were found for acceptance of a vaccine with 90% over 50% efficacy (OR 6.70 [95% CI 6.11-7.35] for caregivers; 11.44 [10.12-12.95] for HCWs); and risk of adverse reactions to be 1 over 10 in 10,000 (3.96 [3.72-4.22] for caregivers; 2.98 [2.76-3.22] for HCWs). To achieve herd immunity target (> 80% vaccination coverage), vaccine efficacy should reach over 70% and risk of adverse reactions lower than 1 in 10,000. Knowledge on herd immunity target increased the odds of vaccine acceptance (1.82 [1.34-2.46] for caregivers; 2.42 [1.58-3.72] for HCWs). Childhood COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was high in China, independent of child's age, and depended on vaccine attributes.

Non-COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among migrant populations worldwide: a scoping review of the literature, 2000-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Migration can be linked to the transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases. Hence, monitoring migrants' vaccination-related concerns can inform needed interventions to support vaccine acceptance. AREAS COVERED: Along with Google and Google Scholar, we searched 13 bibliographic databases between 1 January 2000 and 10 October 2020, to identify published studies of vaccine hesitancy among migrant populations. From a total of 8,915 records, we screened 745 abstracts and included 112 eligible articles. We summarized extracted data using figures, tables, and narrations. Of the 112 articles, 109 were original quantitative (48%), qualitative (45%), and mixed-methods (7%) research, originating mainly from the United States (US) (68%), the United Kingdom (UK) (12%), and Scandinavia (6%). Most articles addressed human papillomavirus (63%), measles (13%), and influenzas (9%) vaccinations, and the leading sponsor of funded research was the US National Institutes of Health (50%). Discernable migrant groups with vaccine-specific concerns included Somali diasporas, UK-based Poles and Romanians, and US-based Haitians and Koreans. Among US-based Latina/Latino immigrants, lower vaccine uptake frequency was mostly associated with awareness levels, knowledge gaps, and uninsured status. EXPERT OPINION: Migrants' vaccine-related apprehensions may cascade well beyond their proximate social connections and influence vaccine attitudes and behaviors in their countries-of-origin.

Exploratory study of the global intent to accept COVID-19 vaccinations.

Background: As the world begins the rollout of multiple COVID-19 vaccines, pandemic exit strategies hinge on widespread acceptance of these vaccines. In this study, we perform a large-scale global exploratory study to examine the levels of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and explore sociodemographic determinants of acceptance. Methods: Between October 31, 2020 and December 15, 2020, 26,759 individuals were surveyed across 32 countries via nationally representative survey designs. Bayesian methods are used to estimate COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and explore the sociodemographic determinants of uptake, as well as the link between self-reported health and faith in the government's handling of the pandemic and acceptance. Results: Here we show that intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine is low in Lebanon, France, Croatia, and Serbia and there is population-level polarisation in acceptance in Poland and Pakistan. Averaged across all countries, being male, over 65, having a high level of education, and believing that the government is handling the pandemic well are associated with increased stated acceptance, but there are country-specific deviations. A belief that the government is handling the pandemic well in Brazil and the United States is associated with lower vaccination intent. In the United Kingdom, we find that approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 did not appear to have an impact on the UK's vaccine acceptance, though as rollout has continued into 2021, the UK's uptake exceeds stated intent in large-scale surveys conducted before rollout. Conclusions: Identifying factors that may modulate uptake of novel COVID-19 vaccines can inform effective immunisation programmes and policies. Differential stated intent to accept vaccines between socio-demographic groups may yield insights into the specific causes of low confidence and may suggest and inform targeted communication policies to boost confidence.

An epidemic of uncertainty: rumors, conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy.

The COVID-19 'infodemic' continues to undermine trust in vaccination efforts aiming to bring an end to the pandemic. However, the challenge of vaccine hesitancy is not only a problem of the information ecosystem and it often has little to do with the vaccines themselves. In this Perspective, we argue that the epidemiological and social crises brought about by COVID-19 have magnified widely held social anxieties and trust issues that, in the unique circumstances of this global pandemic, have exacerbated skepticism toward vaccines. We argue that trust is key to overcoming vaccine hesitancy, especially in a context of widespread social uncertainty brought about by the pandemic, where public sentiment can be volatile. Finally, we draw out some implications of our argument for strategies to build vaccine confidence.