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.

COVID-19 testing decisions and behaviours in two Australian cities.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: High levels of testing are crucial for minimising the spread of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate what prevents people from getting a COVID-19 test when they are experiencing respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 purposively sampled adults between 20 November 2020 and 3 March 2021 in two capital cities of Australia and analysed thematically. The analysis included people who reported having respiratory symptoms but who did not undergo a COVID-19 test. RESULTS: Participants appraised risks of having COVID-19, of infecting others or being infected whilst attending a testing site. They often weighed these appraisals against practical considerations of knowing where and how to get tested, inconvenience or financial loss. CONCLUSIONS: Clear public health messages communicating the importance of testing, even when symptoms are minor, may improve testing rates. Increasing the accessibility of testing centres, such as having them at transport hubs is important, as is providing adequate information about testing locations and queue lengths. SO WHAT?: The findings of our study suggest that more needs to be done to encourage people to get tested for COVID-19, especially when symptoms are minor. Clear communication about the importance of testing, along with easily accessible testing clinics, and financial support for those concerned about financial impacts may improve testing rates.

Willingness to receive a vaccine is influenced by adverse events following immunisation experienced by others.

An adverse event following immunization (AEFI) can have consequences for an individual's future decision making and may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. AEFIs vary in severity and can be experienced directly (by an individual themselves) or indirectly (through witnessed or recounted events). We sought to measure the prevalence of specific AEFIs and understand which AEFIs have the greatest associations with reduced willingness to receive a vaccine and how injection anxiety may moderate the relationship. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements in a sample of adults aged 18 years and over in Australia. Nineteen percent of the 1050 respondents reported experiencing an AEFI that they found stressful. Those who experienced an AEFI reported significantly higher levels of injection anxiety than those who did not. Within the group who reported experiencing an AEFI, respondents were significantly less likely to be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if they reported: indirect exposure to an uncommon/rare AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.87); indirect exposure to a scientifically unsupported AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57). Direct exposure to an AEFI was not associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For those who reported experiencing an AEFI, the odds of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine decreased significantly with an increase in injection anxiety (aOR:0.94; 95% CI: 0.9-0.98). Our results suggest that more is needed to mitigate the consequences of AEFIs on vaccine willingness. Empathically acknowledging at a community level, the experience of both real and perceived AEFIs and incorporating accounts of positive vaccination experiences in vaccine hesitancy interventions may be useful.

Association between traumatic life events and vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional Australian study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify associations between the experience of traumatic life events and vaccination intention to inform whether trauma-affected individuals require targeted interventions when addressing vaccine hesitancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey to identify whether direct or indirect exposure to various traumatic life events and the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in an Australian sample. METHODS: A national online questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of 1050 Australian adults in September 2021. RESULTS: Lower willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with direct experience of a fire or explosion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.78; P = 0.006), direct experience of severe human suffering (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.21-0.71; P = 0.002) and screening positive for PTSD symptoms (aOR:0.52; 95% CI: 0.33-0.82; P = 0.005). Conversely, higher willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with indirect exposure to severe human suffering (aOR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.21-3.22; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the experience of traumatic events and the presence of PTSD symptoms can contribute to vaccination decisions. Our work adds to the growing recognition of the need to effectively mediate the influence of traumatic experiences on encounters within the medical setting and supports the importance of addressing the needs of trauma-affected individuals in their vaccination experiences.

Factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine decision making in older adults and people with underlying conditions in Victoria, Australia: A cross-sectional survey.

Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout included prioritizing older adults and those with underlying conditions. However, little was known around the factors impacting their decision to accept the vaccine. This study aimed to assess vaccine intentions, information needs, and preferences of people prioritized to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the start of the Australian vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional online survey of people aged ≥70 years or 18-69 with chronic or underlying conditions was conducted between 12 February and 26 March 2021 in Victoria, Australia. The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework and items informed the survey design and framing of results. Bivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the association between intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and demographic characteristics. In total, 1828 eligible people completed the survey. Intention to vaccinate was highest among those ≥70 years (89.6%, n = 824/920) versus those aged 18-69 years (83.8%, n = 761/908), with 91% (n = 1641/1803) of respondents agreeing that getting a COVID-19 vaccine was important to their health. Reported vaccine safety (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) and efficacy (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) were associated with intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns around serious illness, long-term effects, and insufficient vaccine testing were factors for not accepting a COVID-19 vaccine. Preferred communication methods included discussion with healthcare providers, with primary care providers identified as the most trusted information source. This study identified factors influencing the prioritized public's COVID-19 vaccine decision-making, including information preferences. These details can support future vaccination rollouts.

Vaccine Champions Training Program: Empowering Community Leaders to Advocate for COVID-19 Vaccines.

Strong community engagement has been critical to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Australia and elsewhere. Community engagement builds trust, enables tailored information dissemination and shapes social norms. Engagement is particularly important in communities with greater vaccine hesitancy, lower health literacy and mistrust in authorities. Early in 2021, as a team of vaccine social scientists and clinicians, we developed a program to train and empower community, faith, industry and healthcare leaders to advocate for COVID-19 vaccines as "vaccine champions". We partnered with the Victorian Department of Health to deliver 91 online Vaccine Champions sessions from March 2021 to June 2022. Over 80 people who received this training were supported by the Department of Health to become formal vaccine champions, independently delivering over 100 locally tailored information sessions. Our survey evaluation of 20 sessions delivered in 2022 found most participants (94%, 118/125) felt more confident to discuss safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and find relevant information after attending a session. We also recorded >90% participant satisfaction with training content, format and presentation. Qualitative feedback from two group interviews highlighted the value of vaccine communication role plays and opportunities for discussion. In this brief report, we present an overview of the Vaccine Champions program, evaluation and next steps.

Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Background: COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. Methods: We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (n = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts (n = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK (n = 299) and the US (n = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings: Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. Interpretation: The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies. Funding: This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.

Traumatic Events and Vaccination Decisions: A Systematic Review.

Despite the apparent relationship between past experiences and subsequent vaccination decisions, the role of traumatic events has been overlooked when understanding vaccination intention and behaviour. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize what is known about the relationship between traumatic events and subsequent vaccination decisions. MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINHAL electronic databases were searched, and 1551 articles were screened for eligibility. Of the 52 articles included in full-text assessment, five met the eligibility criteria. Findings suggest that the experience of trauma is associated with individual vaccination decisions. Social and practical factors related to both trauma and vaccination may mediate this relationship. As this is a relatively new field of inquiry, future research may help to clarify the nuances of the relationship. This review finds that the experience of psychological trauma is associated with vaccination intention and behaviour and points to the potential importance of a trauma-informed approach to vaccination interventions during the current global effort to achieve high COVID-19 vaccine coverage.

Labels matter: Use and non-use of 'anti-vax' framing in Australian media discourse 2008-2018.

Childhood vaccine refusal is a globally contentious topic, with some jurisdictions addressing it with punitive policies. Media discourse influences how solutions are framed by implying blame - a process known as framing. We examined Australian media discourse on vaccine rejection over a period in which mandatory childhood vaccination policies were discussed and introduced, focusing on the common Australian pejorative term 'anti-vaxxer'. We mapped frequency of use from January 2008 to December 2018. We then searched Factiva for print media articles on childhood vaccination and parents published in that period, searching separately for articles using and not using 'anti-vaxxer' and variants. We constructed a set of 85 articles that did, and 85 articles date-matched that did not use the term to make comparisons and conducted a frame analysis of each set. 'Anti-vaxxer' was absent in Australian media discourse 2008-2010, rising to a peak of 247 articles using the term at the height of legislative change in 2017. Parents were framed as: 1) deviant "others"; 2) ignorant and in need of informing; 3) vulnerable and in need of protection from anti-vaccination activists; 4) thoughtful, critical, informed, and in need of agency and respect; 5) entitled, privileged and selfish; and finally, 6) lacking access to vaccination, rather than being unwilling. Articles using 'anti-vax' terms were more likely to negatively characterise non-vaccinating parents, while articles not including this language were more likely to frame them as thoughtful or lacking access. This study clearly demonstrates strategic use of pejoratives in the Australian mass media around a time of pressure for legislative change and conflation of anti-vaccination activists with non-vaccinating parents. We suggest fundamental changes to how non-vaccination is framed and dealt with in the media to curb polarization and fostering more respectful dialogue, and better social and public health outcomes.

Factors Influencing Australian Healthcare Workers' COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions across Settings: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Healthcare workers' COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important for staff and patient safety, workforce capacity and patient uptake. We aimed to identify COVID-19 vaccine intentions, factors associated with uptake and information needs for healthcare workers in Victoria, Australia. We administered a cross-sectional online survey to healthcare workers in hospitals, primary care and aged or disability care settings (12 February-26 March 2021). The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework informed survey design and framing of results. Binary regression results adjusted for demographics provide risk differences between those intending and not intending to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. In total, 3074 healthcare workers completed the survey. Primary care healthcare workers reported the highest intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (84%, 755/898), followed by hospital-based (77%, 1396/1811) and aged care workers (67%, 243/365). A higher proportion of aged care workers were concerned about passing COVID-19 to their patients compared to those working in primary care or hospitals. Only 25% felt they had sufficient information across five vaccine topics, but those with sufficient information had higher vaccine intentions. Approximately half thought vaccines should be mandated. Despite current high vaccine rates, our results remain relevant for booster programs and future vaccination rollouts.

COVID-19 and missed or delayed vaccination in 26 middle- and high-income countries: An observational survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted vaccination services and raised the risk of a global resurgence of preventable diseases. We assessed the extent of and reasons for missed or delayed vaccinations (hereafter 'missed') in middle- and high-income countries in the early months of the pandemic. METHODS: From May to June 2020, participants completed an online survey on missed vaccination. Analyses separated missed childhood and adult vaccination in middle-and high-income countries. RESULTS: Respondents were 28,429 adults from 26 middle- and high-income countries. Overall, 9% of households had missed a vaccine, and 13% were unsure. More households in middle- than high-income countries reported missed childhood vaccination (7.6% vs. 3.0%) and missed adult vaccination (9.6% vs. 3.4%, both p < .05). Correlates of missed childhood vaccination in middle-income countries included COVID-19 risk factors (respiratory and cardiovascular diseases), younger age, male sex, employment, psychological distress, larger household size, and more children. In high-income countries, correlates of missed childhood vaccination also included immunosuppressive conditions, but did not include sex or household size. Fewer correlates were associated with missed adult vaccination other than COVID-19 risk factors and psychological distress. Common reasons for missed vaccinations were worry about getting COVID-19 at the vaccination clinic (15%) or when leaving the house (11%). Other reasons included no healthcare provider recommendation, clinic closure, and wanting to save services for others. INTERPRETATION: Missed vaccination was common and more prevalent in middle- than high-income countries. Missed vaccination could be mitigated by emphasizing COVID-19 safety measures in vaccination clinics, ensuring free and accessible immunization, and clear healthcare provider recommendations.

Qualitative exploration of intentions, concerns and information needs of vaccine-hesitant adults initially prioritised to receive COVID-19 vaccines in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Tailored communication is necessary to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake. We aimed to understand the information needs, perceived benefits and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of people prioritised, but hesitant to receive the vaccine. METHOD: In this qualitative study in Victoria, Australia (February-May 2021), we purposively sampled hesitant adults who were health or aged/disability care workers (n=20), or adults aged 18-69 with comorbidities or aged ≥70 years ('prioritised adults'; n=19). We thematically analysed interviews inductively, then deductively organised themes within the World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of vaccination model. Two stakeholder workshops (n=12) explored understanding and preferences for communicating risks and benefits. We subsequently formed communication recommendations. RESULTS: Prioritised adults and health and aged care workers had short- and long-term safety concerns specific to personal circumstances, and felt like "guinea pigs". They saw vaccination as beneficial for individual and community protection and travel. Some health and aged care workers felt insufficiently informed to recommend vaccines, or viewed this as outside their scope of practice. Workshop participants requested interactive materials and transparency from spokespeople about uncertainty. Conclusions and public health implications: Eleven recommendations address communication content, delivery and context to increase uptake and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Australia needs a vaccine injury compensation scheme: Upcoming COVID-19 vaccines make its introduction urgent.

There is a strong public health ethical justification to introduce a vaccine injury compensation scheme in Australia, and it needs to be in place before widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines.

Examining Australian public perceptions and behaviors towards a future COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: As immunisation program launches have previously demonstrated, it is essential that careful planning occurs now to ensure the readiness of the public for a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of that process, this study aimed to understand the public perceptions regarding a future COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. METHODS: A national cross-sectional online survey of 1420 Australian adults (18 years and older) was undertaken between 18 and 24 March 2020. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariable logistic regression model analysis. RESULTS: Respondents generally held positive views towards vaccination. Eighty percent (n = 1143) agreed with the statement that getting myself vaccinated for COVID-19 would be a good way to protect myself against infection. Females (n = 614, 83%) were more likely to agree with the statement than males (n = 529, 78%) (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-1.8); P = 0.03), while 91% of those aged 70 years and above agreed compared to 76% of 18-29-year-olds (aOR = 2.3 (95% CI:1.2-4.1); P = 0.008). Agreement was also higher for those with a self-reported chronic disease (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-2.0); P = 0.04) and among those who held private health insurance (aOR = 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3-2.3); P < 0.001). Beyond individual perceptions, 78% stated that their decision to vaccinate would be supported by family and friends. CONCLUSION: This study presents an early indication of public perceptions towards a future COVID-19 vaccine and represents a starting point for mapping vaccine perceptions. To support an effective launch of these new vaccines, governments need to use this time to understand the communities concerns and to identify the strategies that will support engagement.

Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19

Several countries have successfully reduced their COVID-19 infection rate early, while others have been overwhelmed. The reasons for the differences are complex, but response efficacy has in part depended on the speed and scale of governmental intervention and how communities have received, perceived, and acted on the information provided by governments and other agencies. While there is no ‘one size fits all’ communications strategy to deliver information during a prolonged crisis, in this article, we draw on key findings from scholarship in multiple social science disciplines to highlight some fundamental characteristics of effective governmental crisis communication. We then present ten recommendations for effective communication strategies to engender maximum support and participation. We argue that an effective communication strategy is a two-way process that involves clear messages, delivered via appropriate platforms, tailored for diverse audiences, and shared by trusted people. Ultimately, the long-term success depends on developing and maintaining public trust. We outline how government policymakers can engender widespread public support and participation through increased and ongoing community engagement. We argue that a diversity of community groups must be included in engagement activities. We also highlight the implications of emerging digital technologies in communication and engagement activities.

COVID-19 Misinformation Trends in Australia: Prospective Longitudinal National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Misinformation about COVID-19 is common and has been spreading rapidly across the globe through social media platforms and other information systems. Understanding what the public knows about COVID-19 and identifying beliefs based on misinformation can help shape effective public health communications to ensure efforts to reduce viral transmission are not undermined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation in Australia and their changes over time. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal national survey was completed by adults (18 years and above) across April (n=4362), May (n=1882), and June (n=1369) 2020. RESULTS: Stronger agreement with misinformation was associated with younger age, male gender, lower education level, and language other than English spoken at home (P<.01 for all). After controlling for these variables, misinformation beliefs were significantly associated (P<.001) with lower levels of digital health literacy, perceived threat of COVID-19, confidence in government, and trust in scientific institutions. Analyses of specific government-identified misinformation revealed 3 clusters: prevention (associated with male gender and younger age), causation (associated with lower education level and greater social disadvantage), and cure (associated with younger age). Lower institutional trust and greater rejection of official government accounts were associated with stronger agreement with COVID-19 misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study highlight important gaps in communication effectiveness, which must be addressed to ensure effective COVID-19 prevention.