Vaccinated Yet Booster-Hesitant: Perspectives from Boosted, Non-Boosted, and Unvaccinated Individuals.

Though available for all age groups in the US, only about half of those vaccinated have obtained a COVID-19 booster. Similar to the unvaccinated, those vaccinated-but-not-boosted may reduce the effectiveness of widespread viral protection. Booster hesitancy differs from general vaccine hesitancy yet remains less researched. We examined booster perceptions across vaccination status using qualitative methodologies. Four focus groups and 11 individual interviews (total n = 32) revealed nuanced changes and differences compared to the first-dose decision. Booster hesitancy stemmed from questions and surprises. Most vaccinated participants accepted the booster, though to varying degrees: enthusiastically with feelings of appreciation and added confidence, passively as an intuitive next step, indifferently following recommendation-"primed" by the yearly flu shot, and reluctantly with worries. The vaccinated-but-not-boosted group expressed confusion about the need for a new shot and discontentment as to why it was not communicated from the start, which coincided with their uncertainty about ending the pandemic. Inadvertently, booster recommendations further polarized non-vaccinated participants, augmenting their skepticism of the original dosages' efficacy or necessity and intensifying their distrust of the government. The findings illuminate the need for adjusting vaccination promotions to better tailor communications (e.g., distinguishing its benefits from the first vaccine and emphasizing the continued risk of COVID-19 spread). Future researchers should further explore the vaccine-accepting-yet-booster-hesitant groups' motivations and risk perceptions to reduce booster rejection.

"I Would Never Push a Vaccine on You": A Qualitative Study of Social Norms and Pressure in Vaccine Behavior in the U.S.

Previous researchers have established the influence of social norms on vaccine behavior. However, little work has been performed contextualizing individuals' experience with these social factors and how they operate to persuade individuals' acceptance or refusal of a vaccine. We aimed to determine the mechanisms of familial and societal pressure or expectations that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. We conducted four focus groups and eleven individual interviews (total n = 32) with participants from across the U.S. of different vaccination statuses. We identified three emergent themes: (1) Altruistic reasoning was particularly prevalent among initially hesitant late adopters-the desire to protect loved ones and others constituted a dominant motive, more powerful than protecting oneself. Vaccination was also reckoned as part of a joint effort to return to normal life; hence, it invoked a sense of responsibility or "obligation"; (2) expectation often became pressure; although most vaccinated participants stated that they respected others' choices, late adopters or unvaccinated participants perceived differently and felt rushed or "forced" into choosing, and many resented being "targeted" or "bullied"; (3) vaccination status became a new label, frequently dividing families, thus producing familial mandates, exclusions, or social stratifications. This caused sadness and feelings of isolation, along with the formation of a camaraderie among the excluded unvaccinated. A vaccine decision builds from the complexities of individuals' experiences and cultures. The vaccinated were not free of hesitancy nor were the unvaccinated all anti-vaxxers. Vigorous vaccine promotion successfully converted some undecided individuals but also fostered distrust of government; alarmingly, the push to receive the COVID-19 vaccine further triggered doubts about established vaccines. Communication strategies need to be developed and implemented carefully so as not to ostracize the unvaccinated community and strengthen their resistance.

Internal and External Motivations and Risk Perception toward COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents in the U.S.

The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available to adolescents in the U.S.; however, vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to full coverage. The literature shows that perceived risks and the presence or lack of motivators are determinants for vaccination decisions, yet research evidence from minors is scant. This study adopted the Protection Motivation framework to identify differences in these facilitators and compare the influence of internal and external motivators among American adolescents in COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A nationwide online survey analyzed 13-17-year-old teenagers' COVID-19 beliefs as well as present or potential reasons for accepting the vaccine. Of the 439 participants, 21.18% were not and did not plan to get vaccinated. Another 52.39% had at least one dosage, of which over three-quarters were internally motivated (whereas those unvaccinated were more likely to be externally motivated, X2 = 4.117, p = 0.042). In unvaccinated individuals, older adolescents reported slightly more internal motivators than younger adolescents (t = -2.023, p = 0.046). Internal motivation was associated with higher risk perception (r2 = 0.06651, p = 0.001), but risk perception had a stronger relationship with vaccination status (r2 = 0.1816, p < 0.001), with vaccinated individuals showing higher risk perception than those unvaccinated (mean difference = 0.42 on a scale of 1-4; t = -3.603, p < 0.001); the risk perception difference was even greater between hesitant and non-hesitant participants (mean difference = 0.63; t = -0.892, p < 0.001). The relationship was moderated by perceived knowledge, where the difference in risk perception between vaccination status was only significant for those with low perceived knowledge (f = 10.59, p = 0.001). Increasing awareness of disease risks and stressing internal motivators may be key to improving uptake in young people. Future research could delve deeper into risk perception formation of adolescents and why and how it differs across populations.

Moving the needle on racial disparity: COVID-19 vaccine trust and hesitancy.

Health equity has grown in prominence during the pandemic. Racial disparities in COVID-19 infections and vaccine hesitancy (differences up to 26%) have generated concerns, research, and interventions with less-than-satisfactory results. Two longitudinal national surveys in the U.S. revealed previously overlooked patterns in the changes of COVID-19 vaccination intention across race/ethnicity. While White vaccine acceptance bounced back to the March 2020 level (65%) a year later, minority (except Asians) responses continued to lag and fluctuated with greater volatility. Though Hispanics' refusal aligned more with Blacks, the ratio of Hispanics willing to vaccinate was similar to Whites, even intermittently went above. Further, the magnitude and direction of changes varied by race at specific times (e.g., launch of Operation Warp Speed, reports of high vaccine efficacy in clinical trials or FDA approval), indicating subgroups react differently to events and thus require timely identification of driving factors for dynamic communications to encourage uptake. We also briefly reviewed the historical background of distrust in medicine and health authorities, including the Tuskegee Syphilis Study that led to the Belmont Report regulating human subject research and severe adverse reactions from the 1976 mass vaccination against the H1N1 swine flu. These examples, perpetuating inequity in the present healthcare system, and logistical barriers illustrate the contextual complexity and importance of instilling confidence in vaccines among the minority population.

Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review.

While COVID-19 continues raging worldwide, effective vaccines are highly anticipated. However, vaccine hesitancy is widespread. Survey results on uptake intentions vary and continue to change. This review compared trends and synthesized findings in vaccination receptivity over time across US and international polls, assessing survey design influences and evaluating context to inform policies and practices. Data sources included academic literature (PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO following PRISMA guidelines), news and official reports published by 20 October 2020. Two researchers independently screened potential peer-reviewed articles and syndicated polls for eligibility; 126 studies and surveys were selected. Declining vaccine acceptance (from >70% in March to <50% in October) with demographic, socioeconomic, and partisan divides was observed. Perceived risk, concerns over vaccine safety and effectiveness, doctors' recommendations, and inoculation history were common factors. Impacts of regional infection rates, gender, and personal COVID-19 experience were inconclusive. Unique COVID-19 factors included political party orientation, doubts toward expedited development/approval process, and perceived political interference. Many receptive participants preferred to wait until others have taken the vaccine; mandates could increase resistance. Survey wording and answer options showed influence on responses. To achieve herd immunity, communication campaigns are immediately needed, focusing on transparency and restoring trust in health authorities.

Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Narrative Review on Prone Position.

INTRODUCTION: Prone position is known to improve mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be determined. In this review, we describe the mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise the current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients, and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic. METHODS: For our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020, and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive or mechanical ventilation and reported the use of prone position. The full text of eligible articles was reviewed, and data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: We found seven studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance and improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked a description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation.

Policy Decisions and Use of Information Technology to Fight COVID-19, Taiwan.

Because of its proximity to and frequent travelers to and from China, Taiwan faces complex challenges in preventing coronavirus disease (COVID-19). As soon as China reported the unidentified outbreak to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019, Taiwan assembled a taskforce and began health checks onboard flights from Wuhan. Taiwan's rapid implementation of disease prevention measures helped detect and isolate the country's first COVID-19 case on January 20, 2020. Laboratories in Taiwan developed 4-hour test kits and isolated 2 strains of the coronavirus before February. Taiwan effectively delayed and contained community transmission by leveraging experience from the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, prevalent public awareness, a robust public health network, support from healthcare industries, cross-departmental collaborations, and advanced information technology capacity. We analyze use of the National Health Insurance database and critical policy decisions made by Taiwan's government during the first 50 days of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Respiratory Failure During Respiratory Epidemics and Pandemics: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Epidemics and pandemics from zoonotic respiratory viruses, such as the 2019 novel coronavirus, can lead to significant global intensive care burden as patients progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A subset of these patients developed refractory hypoxaemia despite maximal conventional mechanical ventilation and required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). This review focuses on considerations for ventilatory strategies, infection control and patient selection related to ECMO for ARDS in a pandemic. We also summarise the experiences with ECMO in previous respiratory pandemics. METHODS: A review of pertinent studies was conducted via a search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar. References of articles were also examined to identify other relevant publications. RESULTS: Since the H1N1 Influenza pandemic in 2009, the use of ECMO for ARDS continues to grow despite limitations in evidence for survival benefit. There is emerging evidence to suggest that lung protective ventilation for ARDS can be further optimised while receiving ECMO so as to minimise ventilator-induced lung injury and subsequent contributions to multi-organ failure. Efforts to improve outcomes should also encompass appropriate infection control measures to reduce co-infections and prevent nosocomial transmission of novel respiratory viruses. Patient selection for ECMO in a pandemic can be challenging. We discuss important ethical considerations and predictive scoring systems that may assist clinical decision-making to optimise resource allocation. CONCLUSION: The role of ECMO in managing ARDS during respiratory pandemics continues to grow. This is supported by efforts to redefine optimal ventilatory strategies, reinforce infection control measures and enhance patient selection.