When Adolescents Disagree with Their Vaccine-Hesitant Parents about COVID-19 Vaccination.

AbstractAs we journey into the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Americans express relief at a "return to normal," experience pandemic fatigue, or embrace the idea of living with COVID-19 in much the same way we live with the seasonal flu. But transition to a new phase of life with SARS-CoV-2 does not diminish the importance of vaccination. The US Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration recently recommended another round of booster dose for persons age 5 and up, or an initial series for those not previously vaccinated, with an updated bivalent formula that protects against both the original virus strain and Omicron subvariants that are now the dominant source of infection. By most accounts most of the population has been or will become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Suboptimal uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines among the approximately 25 million adolescents in the United States is a significant obstacle to population coverage, public health, and the health and well-being of adolescents. A major cause of low adolescent uptake is parental vaccine hesitancy. This article discusses parental vaccine hesitancy and argues that permitting independent adolescent consent to COVID-19 vaccination should be an ethical and policy priority as we continue to confront the threat of Omicron and other variants of the coronavirus. We discuss the central role of the pediatric healthcare team in caring for adolescent patients who disagree with their parents about vaccination.

Sources of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure among healthcare personnel (HCP) in a large tertiary-care medical center.

Objectives: To describe the burden and sources of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP), such as occupational role, work setting, vaccination status, and patient contact between March 2020 through May 2022. Design: Active prospective surveillance. Setting: Large tertiary-care teaching institution with inpatient and ambulatory care services. Results: We identified 4,430 cases among HCPs between March 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022. The median age of this cohort was 37 years (range, 18-89); 2,840 (64.1%) were female; and 2,907 (65.6%) were white. Most of the infected HCP were in the general medicine department, followed by ancillary departments and support staff. Less than 10% of HCP SARS-CoV-2-positive cases worked on a COVID-19 unit. Of the reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures, 2,571 (58.0%) were from an unknown source, 1,185 (26.8%) were from a household source, 458 (10.3%) were from a community source, and 211 (4.8%) were healthcare exposures. A higher proportion of cases with reported healthcare exposures was vaccinated with only 1 or 2 doses, whereas a higher proportion of cases with reported household exposure was vaccinated and boosted, and a higher proportion of community cases with reported and unknown exposures were unvaccinated (P < .0001). HCP exposure to SARS-CoV-2 correlated with community-level transmission regardless of type of reported exposure. Conclusions: The healthcare setting was not an important source of perceived COVID-19 exposure among our HCPs. Most HCPs were not able to definitively identify the source of their COVID-19, followed by suspected household and community exposures. HCP with community or unknown exposure were more likely to be unvaccinated.

COVID-19 vaccination among different types of US Healthcare Personnel.

BACKGROUND: Increasing vaccine coverage remains the best way to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare personnel (HCP) have long been the most credible and frequently used source of vaccine information for the public, and an HCP recommendation is a strong predictor of vaccination. METHODS: A survey of HCP was conducted in September 2021 via a double opt-in network panel. Responses to survey items were summarized and stratified by HCP type and adjusted logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: >94% of the 1074 HCP surveyed reported receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine or intending to soon, with vaccinating most common among pediatricians (98%), followed by family medicine doctors (96%), pharmacists (94%), and nurses/nurse practitioners/physician assistants (88%). HCP with high trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had 26 times the odds of vaccinating of HCP with low trust (95%CI: 9, 74). Nearly half of unvaccinated HCP (47%) were concerned about side effects, and one third of unvaccinated HCP (33%) were concerned the vaccine was developed too quickly. About three quarters of HCP reported strongly recommending the Pfizer-BioNTech (75%) and Moderna (70%) vaccines to their patients, compared to about one quarter (24%) strongly recommending Johnson & Johnson. CONCLUSIONS: Although most HCP are vaccinated against COVID-19 and strongly recommend vaccination to their patients, some harbor similar concerns to the public. Additional resources - regularly updated to explain the progressing scientific landscape and address ever evolving public concerns - are needed to further improve vaccine coverage among HCP and aid them in supporting the decision-making of their patients.

Vaccine hesitancy in the refugee, immigrant, and migrant population in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Refugees, immigrants, and migrants (RIM) in the United States (US) have been identified as an underimmunized population prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine acceptance is critical to combat the public health threat incited by COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable disease. To better understand escalating vaccine hesitancy among US RIM, a comprehensive evaluation of the problem and solutions is necessary. In this systematic review, we included 57 studies to describe vaccination rates, barriers, and interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy over the past decade. Meta-analysis was performed among 22 studies, concluding that RIM represent an underimmunized population compared to the general US population. Narrative synthesis and qualitative methods were used to identify critical barriers, including gaps in knowledge, poor access to medical care, and heightened distrust of the medical system. Our results demonstrate the need for effective, evidence-based interventions to increase vaccination rates among diverse RIM populations.

COVID-19 Vaccination Among Environmental Service Workers Using Agents of Change

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy remains a barrier to community immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Health care workers are at risk both of infection and for nosocomial transmission, but have low rates of vaccine uptake due to hesitancy. This project sought to improve the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake among environmental services (EVS) workers at a large academic regional medical center using a community-based participatory approach (CBPA). Methods The CBPA engaged environmental service workers from January 2021 to March 2021. Public health experts and environmental services department leaders developed a 1-hour training for peer lay health educators (N=29), referred to as agents of change (AOC). AOC were trained on COVID-19 infection, benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and techniques to address vaccine misinformation among their peers. Following the program, we conducted semistructured interviews with the AOC to document their experiences. Results Analysis of the semistructured interviews shows that 89.6% of participants (N=26) felt the training was informative;79.3% of participants (N=23) reported using personal testimony while engaging in discussions about vaccination with their peers, and the majority of participants (N=26, 89.6%) discussed vaccination outside of the workplace in other community settings. During the 2-month time span of the program, mRNA COVID-19 vaccination rates among the EVS staff increased by 21% (N=126 to N=189). Conclusion Our CBPA program demonstrated an increase in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine uptake through using an AOC lay health educator model. As the need for COVID-19 vaccination continues, we must continue to investigate barriers and sources of hesitancy in order to address these through tailored interventions.

COVID-19 vaccination intention and behavior in a large, diverse, U.S. refugee population.

INTRODUCTION: Refugees often face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to their disproportionate representation in the essential workforce and crowded household conditions. There is a paucity of data about risk factors for under-immunization for COVID-19 among refugees. METHODS: Refugees were surveyed in two phases that corresponded to before and after wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Participants were asked about their attitudes, and perceptions about COVID-19, previous acceptance of vaccines, sources utilized to obtain trusted health information, and intent to get vaccinated. The overall participant vulnerability was assessed using the social vulnerability index. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with key stakeholders through snowball sampling. RESULTS: Of 247 refugees, 244 agreed to participate in the initial survey. Among those, 140 (57.4%) intended to get vaccinated, 43 (17.6%) were unsure, and 61 (25%) did not intend to get vaccinated. In the follow up survey, all 215 who were reached, agreed to provide information about their vaccination status. Among those respondents, 141 (65.6%) were either vaccinated or expressed intent to do so, and 74 (34.4%) remained hesitant. We did not observe any significant correlation between socio-demographic variables, country of origin, and vaccination status/intent. Among those who initially intended to get vaccinated, nearly 1 in 5 changed their mind and decided to forego vaccination, and among those who initially did not plan getting vaccinated, 1 in 3 changed their mind and got vaccinated. Fears related to the vaccine, concerns that the vaccine is religiously prohibited, "wait and see" how others did with the vaccine, communication and transportation barriers were commonly cited as reason not to get vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Over a third of refugees in our study were hesitant to get vaccinated. Refugees desired additional education about the benefits and safety of vaccines along with easier access to vaccination clinics in their communities.

Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Attitudes About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination After Emergency Use Authorization.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

Assessment of US Healthcare Personnel Attitudes Towards Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in a Large University Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: As a priority group, healthcare personnel (HCP) will be key to the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. This study assessed HCP willingness to get vaccinated and identified specific concerns that would undermine vaccination efforts. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees, between 23 November and 5 December 2020. The survey evaluated attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to get vaccinated. RESULTS: There were 5287 respondents with a mean (SD) age of 42.5 (13.56) years; 72.8% were female (n = 3842). Overall, 57.5 % of individuals expressed intent to receive COVID-19 vaccine; 80.4% were physicians and scientists representing the largest group. 33.6% of registered nurses, 31.6% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master's level clinicians were unsure they would take the vaccine (P < .001). Respondents who were older, male, White, or Asian were more likely to get vaccinated than other groups. Vaccine safety, potential adverse events, efficacy, and speed of vaccine development dominated concerns listed by participants. Fewer (54.0%) providers of direct care versus non-care providers (62.4%) and 52.0% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients (vs 60.6% of those who had not) indicated they would take the vaccine if offered (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by hospital roles, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance. These findings highlight important heterogeneity in personal attitudes among HCPs around COVID-19 vaccines and highlight a need for tailored communication strategies.

Social Distancing Metrics and Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Rates: Associations Between Mobile Telephone Data Tracking and R.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the absence of robust preventive or curative strategies, the implementation of social distancing has been a key component of limiting the spread of the virus. METHODS: Daily estimates of R(t) were calculated and compared with measures of social distancing made publicly available by Unacast. Daily generated variables representing an overall grade for distancing, changes in distances traveled, encounters between individuals, and daily visitation, were modeled as predictors of average R value for the following week, using linear regression techniques for 8 counties surrounding the city of Syracuse, New York. Supplementary analysis examined differences between counties. RESULTS: A total of 225 observations were available across the 8 counties, with 166 meeting the mean R(t) < 3 outlier criterion for the regression models. Measurements for distance (ß = 1.002, P = .012), visitation (ß = .887, P = .017), and encounters (ß = 1.070, P = .001) were each predictors of R(t) for the following week. Mean R(t) drops when overall distancing grades move from D+ to C-. These trends were significant (P < .001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Social distancing, when assessed by free and publicly available measures such as those shared by Unacast, has an impact on viral transmission rates. The scorecard may also be useful for public messaging about social distance, in hospital planning, and in the interpretation of epidemiological models.