A study of COVID-19 vaccination in the US and Asia: The role of media, personal experiences, and risk perceptions

The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to assess the relationship between personal experiences and vaccine decision-making. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between experiences with COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination status. We administered 28 repeated cross-sectional, online surveys between June 2020 and June 2021 in the US and Asia. The main exposure was media showing COVID-19 cases, and we distinguished those with no such experience, those seeing a not severe case of disease, and those seeing a severe case of disease. Logistic regression models estimated the association between experience and acceptance of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (pre-rollout) or actual vaccination (post-rollout). We explored perceived susceptibility as a potential mediator. Intent to vaccinate was lowest in the US and Taiwan, and highest in India, Indonesia, and China. Across all countries, seeing a severe case of COVID-19 in the media was associated with 1.72 times higher odds of vaccination intent in 2020 (95% CI: 1.46, 2.02) and 2.13 times higher odds of vaccination in 2021 (95% CI: 1.70, 2.67), compared to those not seeing a case or a less severe case. Perceived susceptibility was estimated to mediate 25% of the relationship with hypothetical vaccination (95% CI: 18%, 31%, P<0.0001), and 16% of the relationship with actual vaccination 16% (95% CI: 12%, 19%, P<0.0001). Seriousness of experiences could relate to intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Media exposures are a modifiable experience, and this study highlights how this experience can relate to risk perceptions and eventual vaccination, across a variety of countries where the course of the pandemic differed.

Changes in COVID-19 risk perceptions: methods of an internet survey conducted in six countries.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed changes in behaviors/attitudes related to the COVID-19. With the understanding that behaviors and vaccine decision-making could contribute to global spread of infectious diseases, this study collected several waves of internet-based surveys from individuals in the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. The aims of this study were to (1) characterize the relationship between the epidemiology of disease and changes over time in risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards hygienic behaviors; (2) examine if risk perceptions affect acceptance of less-than-ideal vaccines; and (3) contrast adherence to public health recommendations across countries which have had different governmental responses to the outbreak. DATA DESCRIPTION: We conducted cross-sectional online surveys in six countries from March 2020 to April 2021. By the end of June 2021, there will be six waves of surveys for the United States and China, and four waves for the rest of countries. There are common sets of questions for all countries, however, some questions were adapted to reflect local situations and some questions were designed intentionally for specific countries to capture different COVID-19 mitigation actions. Participants were asked about their adherence towards countermeasures, risk perceptions, and acceptance of a hypothetical vaccine for COVID-19.

Gendered Factors Associated with Preventive Behaviors and Mental Health among Chinese Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic Home Quarantine

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) has greatly impacted the life and mental health of many people globally. The objective of this study was to investigate the factors associated with preventive behaviors and mental health among Chinese adults during their home quarantine in the COVID-19 period. An online questionnaire survey was administered in March 2020. The study participants were adults aged between 18 and 70 years old from 31 provinces in China. Of the 3878 participants, 1314 reported moderate levels of anxiety, and the remaining participants reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety. Findings revealed that females aged between 18 and 30 years old who had higher educational qualifications, greater levels of preventive knowledge, trust in the government, and resided in urban and medium-risk areas (R2 = 0.100, F = 27.97, p <0.001) were more likely to exhibit preventive behaviors. In contrast, a higher negative emotional response was generally seen in males who had low levels of preventive knowledge and behaviors, higher risk perception of infection, lower trust in the government, and unhealthy lifestyles (R2 = 0.127, F = 32.33, p <0.001). In addition, the high-risk perception of infection was positively associated with high odds of anxiety (AOR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.10–1.24), whereas a greater level of preventive knowledge (AOR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19–0.70) and behaviors (AOR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57–0.84), higher trust in the government’s COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures (AOR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71–0.83), and a healthier lifestyle (AOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79–0.99) were negatively associated with high odds of anxiety. Results showed that a lower level of anxiety and negative emotional response were associated with better preventive behaviors against COVID-19, which were influenced by preventive knowledge, risk perception, trust in the government’s COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures, and healthy lifestyle. Findings in this study could help formulate health interventions for vulnerable groups related to gendered vulnerabilities in the COVID-19 environment to improve their mental health and preventive behaviors, especially during the period of a pandemic.

Differential Effect of Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance across Socioeconomic Groups in an International Sample.

Controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 will require high vaccination coverage, but acceptance of the vaccine could be impacted by perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to characterize how vaccine safety and effectiveness impact acceptance of a vaccine, and whether this impact varied over time or across socioeconomic and demographic groups. Repeated cross-sectional surveys of an opt-in internet sample were conducted in 2020 in the US, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. Individuals were randomized into receiving information about a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine with different safety and effectiveness profiles (risk of fever 5% vs. 20% and vaccine effectiveness 50% vs. 95%). We examined the effect of the vaccine profile on vaccine acceptance in a logistic regression model, and included interaction terms between vaccine profile and socioeconomic/demographic variables to examine the differences in sensitivity to the vaccine profile. In total, 12,915 participants were enrolled in the six-country study, including the US (4054), China (2797), Taiwan (1278), Malaysia (1497), Indonesia (1527), and India (1762). Across time and countries, respondents had stronger preferences for a safer and more effective vaccine. For example, in the US in November 2020, acceptance was 3.10 times higher for a 95% effective vaccine with a 5% risk of fever, vs a vaccine 50% effective, with a 20% risk of fever (95% CI: 2.07, 4.63). Across all countries, there was an increase in the effect of the vaccine profile over time (p < 0.0001), with stronger preferences for a more effective and safer vaccine in November 2020 compared to August 2020. Sensitivity to the vaccine profile was also stronger in August compared to November 2020, in younger age groups, among those with lower income; and in those that are vaccine hesitant. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines could vary in a country based upon effectiveness and availability. Effective communication tools will need to be developed for certain sensitive groups, including young adults, those with lower income, and those more vaccine hesitant.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States.

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

Modification of a vaccine hesitancy scale for use in adult vaccinations in the United States and China.

Most research on vaccine hesitancy has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination, but it will be important to understand dimensions of vaccine hesitancy in the adult population as more adult vaccines are introduced in the future. We modified the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to target adult vaccines and provide measures of its reliability and validity relative to influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in cross-sectional internet surveys in the United States and in China. We assessed the impact of vaccine hesitancy on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination using multivariable regression modeling, which informed concurrent validity of the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS). Among 1103 participants in the March 2020 China survey, 5.4% would not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas this figure was 18.8% for the March 2020 US survey and 27.3% for the June 2020 US survey. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency in all three surveys. Models adjusted for age, gender and income level show that prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those who scored higher on the VHS than those who scored lower on all three surveys. Prevalence of past and future flu vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those with higher aVHS scores than those with lower scores. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is lower in those with higher vaccine hesitancy scores, which supports the scale's concurrent validity. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency, making it a valid and reliable tool for measuring vaccination uptake.

Social distancing in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States.

In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, much of the US was placed under social distancing guidelines during March 2020. We characterized risk perceptions and adherence to social distancing recommendations in March 2020 among US adults aged 18+ in an online survey with age and gender quotas to match the general US population (N = 713). We used multivariable logistic and linear regression to estimate associations between age (by generational cohort) and these outcomes. The median perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 within the next month was 32%, and 65% of individuals were practicing more social distancing than before the outbreak. Baby Boomers had lower perceived risk than Millennials (-10.6%, 95% CI: -16.2%, -5.0%), yet were more frequently social distancing (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.56). Public health outreach should focus on raising compliance with social distancing recommendations, especially among high risk groups. Efforts to address risk perceptions alone may be inadequate.