"We need to protect each other": COVID-19 vaccination intentions and concerns among Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

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).

A qualitative investigation of facilitators and barriers to accessing COVID-19 vaccines among Racialized and Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

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.

Understanding the Influence of Web-Based Information, Misinformation, Disinformation, and Reinformation on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Protocol for a Multicomponent Study.

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.

“We need to protect each other”: COVID-19 vaccination intentions and concerns among racialized minority and indigenous peoples in Canada

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).

Vaccine regulation should require and enforce the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in prelicensure clinical trials.

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.

"I don't think there's a point for me to discuss it with my patients": exploring health care providers' views and behaviours regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers' knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines, and their patients' vaccine uptake. This qualitative study' objective was to better understand health care providers' vaccination decisions, their views on barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and proposed solutions, their opinions on vaccine policies, and their perceived role in discussing COVID-19 vaccination with patients. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines were conducted with Canadian health care providers (N = 14) in spring 2021. A qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo was conducted. RESULTS: Participants had positive attitudes toward vaccination and were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to do so once eligible (two delayed their first dose). Only two were actively promoting COVID-19 vaccination to their patients; others either avoided discussing the topic or only provided answers when asked questions. Participants' proposed solutions to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the public were in relation to access to vaccination services, information in multiple languages, and community outreach. Most participants were in favor of mandatory vaccination policies and had mixed views on the potential impact of the Canadian vaccine-injury support program. CONCLUSIONS: While health care providers are recognized as a key source of information regarding vaccines, participants in our study did not consider it their role to provide advice on COVID-19 vaccination. This is a missed opportunity that could be avoided by ensuring health care providers have the tools and training to feel confident in engaging in vaccine discussions with their patients.

Deferring Risk: Limitations to the Evidence in Product Labels for Vaccine Use in Pregnancy.

Background: The gaps in clinical trial evidence about vaccination in pregnancy have serious implications for health care worker and public misunderstandings. Contradictions between National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) recommendations and regulatory product labeling information contribute to misinformation about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Methods: A mixed methods approach that included a stakeholder consensus decision-making workshop and a national survey of Canadian health care providers (HCPs). Results: We identified knowledge gaps and serious limitations concerning the information in vaccine product labels. Stakeholders were troubled that some HCPs rely on regulatory product labels to inform their decisions without knowing their limitations in content. Our survey showed that HCPs were uncertain about the purpose of product labels and the evidence contained in them. Over a third of respondents incorrectly thought that product labels and NITAG recommendations are based on the same evidence and that the information they contain is regularly updated. Conclusions: Applying social risk theories, we show how such gaps in information defer responsibility for decisions about disease risk and vaccine safety from regulatory agencies and vaccine manufacturers onto HCPs and their clients. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19 and other emerging vaccines that are initially authorized for conditional or emergency use, and especially in understudied populations such as pregnant people. More frequent updating and alignment of robust, unbiased, and independently reviewed clinical trial and postmarket safety and effectiveness evidence with NITAG recommendations would allay HCP and public misunderstandings.