Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 36
Filter
1.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 19(2): 2215150, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20243892

ABSTRACT

During the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, safety concerns may have led some pregnant individuals to postpone vaccination until after giving birth. This study aimed to describe temporal patterns and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy in Ontario, Canada. Using the provincial birth registry linked with the COVID-19 vaccine database, we identified all individuals who gave birth between January 1 and December 31, 2021, and had not yet been vaccinated by the end of pregnancy, and followed them to June 30, 2022 (follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months). We used cumulative incidence curves to describe COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy and assessed associations with sociodemographic, pregnancy-related, and health behavioral factors using Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 137,198 individuals who gave birth in 2021, 87,376 (63.7%) remained unvaccinated at the end of pregnancy; of these, 65.0% initiated COVID-19 vaccination by June 30, 2022. Lower maternal age (<25 vs. 30-34 y aHR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.70-0.77), smoking during pregnancy (vs. nonsmoking aHR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.65-0.72), lower neighborhood income (lowest quintile vs. highest aHR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.76-0.83), higher material deprivation (highest quintile vs. lowest aHR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.70-0.79), and exclusive breastfeeding (vs. other feeding aHR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.79-0.84) were associated with lower likelihood of vaccine initiation. Among unvaccinated individuals who gave birth in 2021, COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy reached 65% by June 30, 2022, suggesting persistent issues with vaccine hesitancy and/or access to vaccination in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cognition , Databases, Factual , Ontario/epidemiology , Vaccination
2.
Vaccine ; 41(26): 3907-3914, 2023 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239182

ABSTRACT

Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients.


Subject(s)
Complementary Therapies , Naturopathy , Humans , Quebec , Canada , Vaccination
3.
JMIR Form Res ; 7: e38430, 2023 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2258492

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated spread of COVID-19, many jurisdictions around the world imposed mandatory or recommended social or physical distancing. As a result, at the beginning of the pandemic, various communication materials appeared online to promote distancing. Explanations of the science underlying these mandates or recommendations were either highly technical or highly simplified. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the effects of a dynamic visualization on distancing. Our overall aim was to help people understand the dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 in their community and the implications of their own behavior for themselves, those around them, the health care system, and society. METHODS: Using Scrum, which is an agile framework; JavaScript (Vue.js framework); and code already developed for risk communication in another context of infectious disease transmission, we rapidly developed a new personalized web application. In our application, people make avatars that represent themselves and the people around them. These avatars are integrated into a 3-minute animation illustrating an epidemiological model for COVID-19 transmission, showing the differences in transmission with and without distancing. During the animation, the narration explains the science of how distancing reduces the transmission of COVID-19 in plain language in English or French. The application offers full captions to complement the narration and a descriptive transcript for people using screen readers. We used Google Analytics to collect standard usage statistics. A brief, anonymous, optional survey also collected self-reported distancing behaviors and intentions in the previous and coming weeks, respectively. We launched and disseminated the application on Twitter and Facebook on April 8, 2020, and April 9, 2020. RESULTS: After 26 days, the application received 3588 unique hits from 82 countries. The optional survey at the end of the application collected 182 responses. Among this small subsample of users, survey respondents were nearly (170/177, 96%) already practicing distancing and indicated that they intended to practice distancing in the coming week (172/177, 97.2%). Among the small minority of people (n=7) who indicated that they had not been previously practicing distancing, 2 (29%) reported that they would practice distancing in the week to come. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a web application to help people understand the relationship between individual-level behavior and population-level effects in the context of an infectious disease spread. This study also demonstrates how agile development can be used to quickly create personalized risk messages for public health issues like a pandemic. The nonrandomized design of this rapid study prevents us from concluding the application's effectiveness; however, results thus far suggest that avatar-based visualizations may help people understand their role in infectious disease transmission.

4.
Pharmacoecon Open ; 6(5): 631-635, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2277403

ABSTRACT

Publicly funded immunization programs have grown in both complexity and scope, resulting in increased costs and more complex programmatic decision making. Economic evaluations can provide crucial information to support informed decision making. While very few countries have National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups that analyze economic information, many have started to develop processes for this purpose. Since these guidelines are being developed at the national level, we propose that regional jurisdictions, especially those responsible for healthcare (e.g., provinces, territories, states), need clear processes for incorporating this information into their immunization decision making and program implementation. We interviewed Canadian vaccine experts involved in provincial vaccine policy decision making to identify current practices, perceptions, and recommendations around incorporating economic analysis into that process. Based on these interviews, we make five recommendations: (1) economic evidence should be routinely incorporated into the decision making process; (2) economic experts should sit on, or be available to, regional advisory committees; (3) efforts should be made to build on regional expertise by increasing educational opportunities on economic evaluation; (4) processes should include guidelines for when economic analysis is not required; and (5) clarification on the role of regional advisory groups in economic analysis is needed in relation to national expertise. The information presented here provides a starting point for regional health policy experts and decision makers to work collaboratively with national partners to create transparent and effective approaches to incorporating economic analysis into vaccine decision making.

5.
Vaccine ; 2022 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2231160

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A decline in routine vaccination was reported by some countries early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the pandemic, determinants of routine childhood vaccination may have changed. Changes over time in parents' perceptions of routine vaccines and intentions for their children during the pandemic have not been fully explored. Understanding changes provides opportunities to promote routine childhood vaccines and address factors that may compromise parents' acceptance. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal analysis of two sequential national surveys during the pandemic (Dec 2020 and Oct/Nov 2021) to assess changes over time in Canadian parents' perceptions of routine childhood vaccines, intentions to vaccinate, access for their children ≤ 17 years, and differences among sociodemographic characteristics. McNemar-Bowker tests were used to determine changes in parents' responses collected at two time points. RESULTS: Of the 650 parents in the sample, 25.1% with a child ≤ 6 years and 20.5% with a child 7-17 years perceived that routine childhood vaccines were more important because of the pandemic. Between the two time points, parents' confidence in the safety (72.8% to 80.2%, p <.001) and effectiveness (81.7% to 85.2%, p =.007) of routine vaccines increased, parents were more engaged in vaccine decision-making (73.4% to 79.8%, p =.006), and everyday stress preventing vaccination decreased (78.8% to 68.5%, p <.001). Acceptance of routine vaccines increased (82.9% to 86.5%, p =.021), but more parents were undecided about influenza vaccination (12.6% to 20.3%, p =.002). Compared to parents with 1 child, those with 2 children reported increased vaccination acceptance (82.6% to 87.4%, p =.024). INTERPRETATION: Under the spotlight of COVID-19, parents' confidence in routine vaccines, engagement in decision-making, and vaccination acceptance increased. Vaccination providers should support parents' decision-making as they navigate routine childhood vaccine uncertainties. Differences in parents' acceptance of routine and influenza vaccines for their children highlight the need for targeted communication strategies for specific vaccines.

6.
Vaccine ; 41(10): 1716-1725, 2023 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2221472

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Population-based COVID-19 vaccine coverage estimates among pregnant individuals are limited. We assessed temporal patterns in vaccine coverage (≥1 dose before or during pregnancy) and evaluated factors associated with vaccine series initiation (receiving dose 1 during pregnancy) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We linked the provincial birth registry with COVID-19 vaccination records from December 14, 2020 to December 31, 2021 and assessed coverage rates among all pregnant individuals by month, age, and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics. Among individuals who gave birth since April 2021-when pregnant people were prioritized for vaccination-we assessed associations between sociodemographic, behavioral, and pregnancy-related factors with vaccine series initiation using multivariable regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and risk differences (aRD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 221,190 pregnant individuals, vaccine coverage increased to 71.2% by December 2021. Gaps in coverage across categories of age and sociodemographic characteristics decreased over time, but did not disappear. Lower vaccine series initiation was associated with lower age (<25 vs. 30-34 years: aRR 0.53, 95%CI 0.51-0.56), smoking (vs. non-smoking: 0.64, 0.61-0.67), no first trimester prenatal care visit (vs. visit: 0.80, 0.77-0.84), and residing in neighborhoods with the lowest income (vs. highest: 0.69, 0.67-0.71). Vaccine series initiation was marginally higher among individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (vs. no conditions: 1.07, 1.04-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine coverage among pregnant individuals remained lower than in the general population, and there was lower vaccine initiation by multiple characteristics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Ontario/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Vaccination
7.
Vaccine ; 41(7): 1333-1341, 2023 02 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184282

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have assessed the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on immunization coverage for adolescents, and little is known about how coverage has changed throughout the pandemic. We aimed to: (1) assess the change in coverage for school-based vaccines in Alberta, Canada resulting from the pandemic; (2) determine whether coverage differed by geographic health zone and school type; and (3) ascertain whether coverage has returned to pre-pandemic levels. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, we used administrative health data to compare coverage for human papillomavirus (HPV) and meningococcal conjugate A, C, Y, W-135 (MenC-ACYW) vaccines between pre-pandemic (2017-2018 school year) and pandemic (2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years) cohorts (N = 289,420). Coverage was also compared by health zone and authority type. The 2019-2020 cohort was followed over one year to assess catch-up. RESULTS: Compared to 2017-2018, immunization coverage for HPV was significantly lower in the 2019-2020 (absolute difference: 60.8%; 95% CI: 60.4-61.3%) and 2020-2021 cohorts (absolute difference: 59.9%; 95% CI: 59.4-60.3%). There was a smaller, significant decline in MenC-ACYW coverage comparing 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 (absolute difference: 6.1%; 95% CI: 5.6-6.5%) and 2020-2021 (absolute difference: 32.2%; 95% CI: 31.6-32.7%). Private schools had low coverage overall, while coverage fluctuated by zone. During follow-up of the 2019-2020 cohort, coverage for HPV and MenC-ACYW increased from 5.6% to 50.2%, and 80.7% to 83.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was a substantial decrease in school-based immunization coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic, and coverage has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, suggesting further catch-up is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Meningococcal Vaccines , Papillomavirus Infections , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Humans , Adolescent , Vaccination Coverage , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Human Papillomavirus Viruses , Alberta , Immunization Programs , Vaccination
8.
Health Rep ; 33(12): 37-54, 2022 12 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2205425

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study's objective was to examine sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and vaccination intent in the Canadian provinces by identifying factors associated with vaccine uptake in seniors prioritized for vaccination at the time of the survey and vaccination intent in all adults. Data and methods: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian adults was conducted in all provinces from mid-April to mid-May 2021. In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, respondents (n=10,678) provided information on their COVID-19 vaccination status or their intent to get vaccinated. Logistic regression models were fitted using sociodemographic factors as explanatory variables and vaccination status (unvaccinated vs at least one dose) or vaccination intent (unlikely versus likely or already vaccinated) as outcomes. To account for vaccine prioritization groups, multiple regression models were adjusted for province of residence, age, Indigenous identity and health care worker status. Results: Seniors with a lower household income (less than $60,000) and those living in smaller communities (fewer than 100,000 inhabitants) had higher odds of being unvaccinated. Among Canadian adults, the odds of being unlikely to get vaccinated were higher for males (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.3), individuals younger than 60 (AOR between 3.3 and 5.1), non-health care workers (AOR 3.3), those with less than a high school education (AOR 3.4) or a household income of less than $30,000 (AOR 2.7) and individuals who do not identify as South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean or Japanese (AOR 1.7). Interpretation: COVID-19 vaccine uptake (80%) and vaccination intent (95%) were high among Canadians; however, relative disparities were observed among specific groups. Continued efforts targeted toward these groups are essential in reducing potential inequity in access or service provision.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Male , Humans , Canada/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination
9.
J Glob Health ; 12: 05053, 2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2155720

ABSTRACT

Background: Studies have shown that immigrants have lower vaccination rates than the Canadian-born population. We sought to assess COVID-19 vaccine coverage and factors associated with uptake among foreign-born immigrants relative to the non-immigrant population in Alberta, Canada. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed population-based linked administrative health data from Alberta to examine vaccine coverage for 3 931 698 Albertans, of which 731 217 were immigrants. We calculated COVID-19 vaccination coverage as the proportion of eligible Albertans with a record of receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine as of November 29, 2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association of vaccine coverage with migration status (immigrants: four categories based on time since migration and non-immigrants) adjusting for socio-demographic variables. Results: Overall, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was 78.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 78.1%-78.3%) among immigrants and 76.0% (95% CI = 75.9%-76.0%) among non-immigrants. Coverage among immigrants differed by continent of origin, with North America, Oceania, and Europe having the lowest coverage. Although vaccine coverage was relatively uniform across neighbourhood income quintiles for immigrants, immigrants living in rural areas had lower vaccine coverage compared to non-immigrants living in rural areas. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a significant interaction between age category and migration status. While immigrants below 50 years of age generally had significantly higher vaccine coverage compared to non-immigrants, there was some variation based on time since migration. Immigrants above 50 years of age showed significantly lower coverage compared to non-immigrants of the same age. Conclusions: Public health interventions should focus on older immigrants, immigrants living in rural areas, and immigrants from specific continental backgrounds in order to improve COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

10.
Soc Sci Med ; 313: 115400, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2121487

ABSTRACT

People may choose to receive vaccines in response to pressures that outweigh any concerns that they have. We explored Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples' motivations for, perceptions of choice in, and concerns about, COVID-19 vaccination. We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, including a national survey administered around the time vaccines were first authorized (Dec 2020) followed by qualitative interviews when vaccines were becoming more readily available to adults (May-June 2021). We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and interviews using critical feminist methodologies. Survey respondents self-identified as a Racialized minority (n = 1488) or Indigenous (n = 342), of which 71.4% and 64.6%, respectively, intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Quantitative results indicated perceptions of COVID-19 disease were associated with vaccination intention. For instance, intention was associated with agreement that COVID-19 disease is severe, risk of becoming sick is great, COVID-19 vaccination is necessary, and vaccines available in Canada will be safe (p < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccines were in short supply in Canada when we subsequently completed qualitative interviews with a subset of Racialized minority (n = 17) and Indigenous (n = 10) survey respondents. We coded interview transcripts around three emergent themes relating to governmentality and cultural approaches to intersectional risk theories: feelings of collective responsibility, choice as privilege, and remaining uncertainties about COVID-19 vaccines. For example, some mentioned the responsibility and privilege to receive a vaccine earlier than those living outside of Canada. Some felt constraints on their freedom to choose to receive or refuse a vaccine from intersecting oppressions or their health status. Although all participants intended to get vaccinated, many mentioned uncertainties about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination. Survey respondents and interview participants demonstrated nuanced associations of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy shaped by perspectives of vaccine-related risks, symbolic associations of vaccines with hope, and intersecting social privileges and inequities (including racialization).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Intention , Indigenous Peoples , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Canada
11.
CMAJ Open ; 10(4): E922-E929, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090864

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Prisoners , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Prisons , Cross-Sectional Studies , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Canada/epidemiology
13.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; : 1-10, 2022 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2062772

ABSTRACT

Structural and systemic inequalities can contribute to susceptibility to COVID-19 disease and limited access to vaccines. Recognizing that Racialized and Indigenous Peoples may experience unique barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, this study explored early COVID-19 vaccine accessibility, including barriers and potential solutions to vaccine access, for these communities in Canada. We conducted semi-structured interviews about challenges to accessing COVID-19 vaccination with Racialized and Indigenous Peoples, including linguistic minorities and newcomers, in Spring 2021, just as COVID-19 vaccines were becoming more widely available in Canada. Participants were purposely selected from respondents to a Canadian national online survey. Three researchers analyzed the interviews for emergent themes using a descriptive content analysis approach in NVivo. At the time of the interview, interview participants (N = 27) intended to receive (n = 15) or had received (n = 11) at least one vaccine dose, or did not state their status (n = 1). Participants described multiple barriers to COVID-19 vaccination that they personally experienced and/or anticipated they or others could experience - including technology requirements, language barriers, lack of identification documentation, and travel challenges - as well as related solutions. These were organized into three broad categories: 1) COVID-19 disease and vaccination information, 2) vaccination booking procedures, and 3) vaccination sites. These structural and systemic barriers during the initial months of vaccine rollout substantially restricted participants' COVID-19 vaccination access, even when they were eager to get vaccinated, and should be addressed early in vaccine rollouts to facilitate optimal uptake for everyone everywhere.

14.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(10): e41012, 2022 Oct 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054814

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an explosion in the amount of information shared on the internet, including false and misleading information on SARS-CoV-2 and recommended protective behaviors. Prior to the pandemic, web-based misinformation and disinformation were already identified as having an impact on people's decision to refuse or delay recommended vaccination for themselves or their children. OBJECTIVE: The overall aims of our study are to better understand the influence of web-based misinformation and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccine decisions and investigate potential solutions to reduce the impact of web-based misinformation and disinformation about vaccines. METHODS: Based on different research approaches, the study will involve (1) the use of artificial intelligence techniques, (2) a web-based survey, (3) interviews, and (4) a scoping review and an environmental scan of the literature. RESULTS: As of September 1, 2022, data collection has been completed for all objectives. The analysis is being conducted, and results should be disseminated in the upcoming months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will help with understanding the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Canadian individuals and identifying effective, tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among them. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41012.

15.
Social science & medicine (1982) ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2046100

ABSTRACT

People may choose to receive vaccines in response to pressures that outweigh any concerns that they have. We explored Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples' motivations for, perceptions of choice in, and concerns about, COVID-19 vaccination. We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, including a national survey administered around the time vaccines were first authorized (Dec 2020) followed by qualitative interviews when vaccines were becoming more readily available to adults (May–June 2021). We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and interviews using critical feminist methodologies. Survey respondents self-identified as a Racialized minority (n = 1488) or Indigenous (n = 342), of which 71.4% and 64.6%, respectively, intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Quantitative results indicated perceptions of COVID-19 disease were associated with vaccination intention. For instance, intention was associated with agreement that COVID-19 disease is severe, risk of becoming sick is great, COVID-19 vaccination is necessary, and vaccines available in Canada will be safe (p < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccines were in short supply in Canada when we subsequently completed qualitative interviews with a subset of Racialized minority (n = 17) and Indigenous (n = 10) survey respondents. We coded interview transcripts around three emergent themes relating to governmentality and cultural approaches to intersectional risk theories: feelings of collective responsibility, choice as privilege, and remaining uncertainties about COVID-19 vaccines. For example, some mentioned the responsibility and privilege to receive a vaccine earlier than those living outside of Canada. Some felt constraints on their freedom to choose to receive or refuse a vaccine from intersecting oppressions or their health status. Although all participants intended to get vaccinated, many mentioned uncertainties about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination. Survey respondents and interview participants demonstrated nuanced associations of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy shaped by perspectives of vaccine-related risks, symbolic associations of vaccines with hope, and intersecting social privileges and inequities (including racialization).

17.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1745, 2022 09 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029704

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been proposed as solutions to waning immunity and decreased effectiveness of primary doses against infection with new SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, the effectiveness of additional vaccine doses relies on widespread population acceptance. We aimed to assess the acceptance of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses (third and annual doses) among Canadian adults and determine associated factors. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional online survey among Canadian adults from October 14 to November 12, 2021. Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to identify sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with third and annual dose acceptance and indecision, compared to refusal. We also assessed influences on vaccine decision-making, and preferences for future vaccine delivery. RESULTS: Of 6010 respondents, 70% reported they would accept a third dose, while 15.2% were undecided. For annual doses, 64% reported acceptance, while 17.5% were undecided. Factors associated with third dose acceptance and indecision were similar to those associated with annual dose acceptance and indecision. Previous COVID-19 vaccine receipt, no history of COVID-19 disease, intention to receive an influenza vaccine, and increasing age were strongly associated with both acceptance and indecision. Chronic illness was associated with higher odds of acceptance, while self-reported disability was associated with higher odds of being undecided. Higher education attainment and higher income were associated with higher odds of accepting additional doses. Minority first language was associated with being undecided about additional doses, while visible minority identity was associated with being undecided about a third dose and refusing an annual dose. All respondents reported government recommendations were an important influence on their decision-making and identified pharmacy-based delivery and drop-in appointments as desirable. Co-administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines was viewed positively by 75.5% of the dose 3 acceptance group, 12.3% of the undecided group, and 8.4% of the refusal group. CONCLUSIONS: To increase acceptance, targeted interventions among visible minority and minority language populations, and those with a disability, are required. Offering vaccination at pharmacies and through drop-in appointments are important to facilitate uptake, while offering COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration may have little benefit among those undecided about additional doses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Canada/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2
18.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1708, 2022 09 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: By July 2021, Canada had received enough COVID-19 vaccines to fully vaccinate every eligible Canadian. However, despite the availability of vaccines, some eligible individuals remain unvaccinated. Differences in vaccination uptake can be driven by health inequalities which have been exacerbated and amplified by the pandemic. This study aims to assess inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intent in adults 18 years or older across Canada by identifying sociodemographic factors associated with non-vaccination and low vaccination intent using data drawn from the June to August 2021 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). METHODS: The CCHS is an annual cross-sectional and nationally representative survey conducted by Statistics Canada, which collects health-related information. Since September 2020, questions about the COVID-19 pandemic are asked. Adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to examine associations between vaccination uptake or intent and sociodemographic and health related variables. Region, age, gender, level of education, Indigenous status, visible minority status, perceived health status, and having a regular healthcare provider were considered as predictors, among other factors. RESULTS: The analysis included 9,509 respondents. The proportion of unvaccinated was 11%. Non-vaccination was associated with less than university education (aOR up to 3.5, 95% CI 2.1-6.1), living with children under 12 years old (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4), not having a regular healthcare provider (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), and poor self-perceived health (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4). Only 5% of the population had low intention to get vaccinated. Being unlikely to get vaccinated was associated with the Prairies region (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1), younger age groups (aOR up to 4.0, 95% CI 1.3-12.3), less than university education (aOR up to 3.8, 95% CI 1.9-7.6), not being part of a visible minority group (aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-6.4), living with children under 12 years old (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), unattached individuals (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.1), and poor self-perceived health (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities were observed in vaccination uptake and intent among various sociodemographic groups. Awareness of inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intent is needed to determine the vaccination barriers to address in vaccination promotion strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Canada/epidemiology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Intention , Pandemics , Public Health , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination
19.
BMJ ; 378: e071416, 2022 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1992992

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, and stillbirth after covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. DESIGN: Population based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, 1 May to 31 December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All liveborn and stillborn infants from pregnancies conceived at least 42 weeks before the end of the study period and with gestational age ≥20 weeks or birth weight ≥500 g. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Cox regression, hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for preterm birth before 37 weeks (overall and spontaneous preterm birth), very preterm birth (<32 weeks), small for gestational age at birth (<10th centile), and stillbirth. Vaccination against covid-19 was treated as a time varying exposure in the outcome specific risk window, and propensity score weighting was used to adjust hazard ratios for potential confounding. RESULTS: Among 85 162 births, 43 099 (50.6%) occurred in individuals who received one dose or more of a covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy-42 979 (99.7%) received an mRNA vaccine. Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with any increased risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated v 6.9% among unvaccinated; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% v 4.4%; 0.96, 0.90 to 1.03), or very preterm birth (0.59% v 0.89%; 0.80, 0.67 to 0.95). No increase was found in risk of small for gestational age at birth (9.1% v 9.2%; 0.98, 0.93 to 1.03) or stillbirth (0.25% v 0.44%; 0.65, 0.51 to 0.84). Findings were similar by trimester of vaccination, mRNA vaccine product, and number of doses received during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that vaccination against covid-19 during pregnancy is not associated with a higher risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, or stillbirth.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Premature Birth , Stillbirth , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Female , Fetal Growth Retardation , Gestational Age , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Small for Gestational Age , Ontario/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Stillbirth/epidemiology , Vaccination , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
20.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; : 2104019, 2022 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1960853

ABSTRACT

Exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from the pivotal randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines that led to emergency regulatory approval created gaps in data needed for vaccine policy, healthcare provider recommendations, and women's decisions about vaccination. We argue that such knowledge gaps increase potential for vaccine hesitancy and misinformation relating to the health of women and infants, and that these gaps in evidence are avoidable. Over several decades, ethical and scientific guidance, scholarship, and advocacy in favor of pregnant and breastfeeding women's participation in clinical development of vaccines has accumulated. Guidance on how to include pregnant and breastfeeding women in vaccine trials ethically and safely predates the COVID-19 pandemic but has yet to be routinely incorporated in vaccine development. We highlight the important role regulatory authorities could play in requiring that pregnant and breastfeeding women be eligible as volunteer participants in prelicensure vaccine trials for products that are expected to be used in this population. Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding populations in clinical trials leading to market approval or emergency use authorization should be undertaken early or concurrently at the time of trials in the general population.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL