Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and reduced vaccine confidence in rural underserved populations

Vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to limit the spread of infectious diseases, and reduce mortality and morbidity in rural areas. Waning public confidence in vaccines, especially the COVID-19 vaccine, remains a cause for concern. A number of individuals in the US and worldwide remain complacent, choosing not to be vaccinated and/or delay COVID-19 vaccination, resulting in suboptimal herd immunity. The primary goal of this study is to identify modifiable factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among vaccine-eligible individuals with access to vaccines in two under-resourced rural states, Alaska and Idaho. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with providers and focus groups with community participants in Alaska and Idaho. A moderator’s guide was used to facilitate interviews and focus groups conducted and recorded using Zoom and transcribed verbatim. Thematic, qualitative analysis was conducted using QDA Miner. Themes and subthemes that emerged were labeled, categorized, and compared to previously described determinants of general vaccine hesitancy: established contextual, individual and/or social influences, vaccine and vaccination-specific concerns. Themes (n = 9) and sub-themes (n = 51) identified during the qualitative analysis highlighted a factor’s contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and poor vaccine uptake. Relevant influenceable factors were grouped into three main categories: confidence, complacency, and convenience. Vaccines are effective public health interventions to promote health and prevent diseases in rural areas. Practical solutions to engage healthcare providers, researchers, vaccine advocates, vaccine manufacturers, and other partners in local communities are needed to increase public trust in immunization systems to achieve community immunity.

Influences, Barriers, and Facilitators to COVID-19 Vaccination: Cross-sectional Survey on Vaccine Hesitancy in 2 Rural States.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to limit the spread of infectious diseases such as that caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19. Unfortunately, vaccination hesitancy continues to be a threat to national and global health. Further research is necessary to determine the modifiable and nonmodifiable factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in under-resourced, underserved, and at-risk rural and urban communities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, understand, and address modifiable barriers and factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among vaccine-eligible individuals with access to the vaccine in Alaska and Idaho. METHODS: An electronic survey based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group on Experts (SAGE) on Immunization survey tool and investigators' previous work was created and distributed in June 2021 and July 2021. To be eligible to participate in the survey, individuals had to be ≥18 years of age and reside in Alaska or Idaho. Responses were grouped into 4 mutually exclusive cohorts for data analysis and reporting based on intentions to be vaccinated. Respondent characteristics and vaccine influences between cohorts were compared using Chi-square tests and ANOVA. Descriptive statistics were also used. RESULTS: There were data from 736 usable surveys with 40 respondents who did not intend to be vaccinated, 27 unsure of their intentions, 8 who intended to be fully vaccinated with no doses received, and 661 fully vaccinated or who intended to be vaccinated with 1 dose received. There were significant differences in characteristics and influences between those who were COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant and those who had been vaccinated. Concerns related to possible side effects, enough information on long-term side effects, and enough information that is specific to the respondent's health conditions were seen in those who did not intend to be fully vaccinated and unsure about vaccination. In all cohorts except those who did not intend to be fully vaccinated, more information about how well the vaccine works was a likely facilitator to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These survey results from 2 rural states indicate that recognition of individual characteristics may influence vaccine choices. However, these individual characteristics represent only a starting point to delivering tailored messages that should come from trusted sources to address vaccination barriers.

Patient-Guided Talking Points to Address COVID-19 and General Vaccine Hesitancy.

Vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to limit spread of disease. Waning public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines has resulted in reduced vaccination rates. In fact, despite vaccine availability, many individuals choose to delay COVID-19 vaccination resulting in suboptimal herd immunity and increased viral mutations. A number of qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted to identify, understand, and address modifiable barriers and factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among individuals with access to vaccine. Vaccine confidence may be improved through targeted patient-provider discussion. More patients are turning to pharmacists to receive their vaccinations across the lifespan. The primary goal of this commentary is to share evidence-based, patient talking points, tailored by practicing pharmacists, to better communicate and address factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and reduced vaccine confidence.

Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials.

For many years there has been a consensus among the Clinical Research community that ITT analysis represents the correct approach for the vast majority of trials. Recent worldwide regulatory guidance for pharmaceutical industry trials has allowed discussion of alternatives to the ITT approach to analysis; different treatment effects can be considered which may be more clinically meaningful and more relevant to patients and prescribers. The key concept is of a trial "estimand", a precise description of the estimated treatment effect. The strategy chosen to account for patients who discontinue treatment or take alternative medications which are not part of the randomised treatment regimen are important determinants of this treatment effect. One strategy to account for these events is treatment policy, which corresponds to an ITT approach. Alternative equally valid strategies address what the treatment effect is if the patient actually takes the treatment or does not use specific alternative medication. There is no single right answer to which strategy is most appropriate, the solution depends on the key clinical question of interest. The estimands framework discussed in the new guidance has been particularly useful in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic and has clarified what choices are available to account for the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials. Specifically, an ITT approach addresses a treatment effect that may not be generalisable beyond the current pandemic.

Atypical presentation of COVID-19 in hospitalised older adults.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognised that older patients may not present with typical symptoms of COVID-19. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the incidence, characteristics and clinical outcome of older adults with atypical presentations of COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adults ≥ 65 years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to our institution between 1 March and 24 April 2020 was performed. Patients were categorised into typical or atypical groups based on primary presenting complaint in the community. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients (mean age 81 ± 8 years; 62 male) were included. Seventy-three (60%) were categorised into the typical group and 49 (40%) into the atypical group. In the atypical group, common presenting complaints were fall in 18 (36%), reduced mobility or generalised weakness in 18 (36%) and delirium in 11 (22%). Further assessment by paramedics and on admission found 32 (65%) to have typical features of COVID-19, fever being the most common, and 22 (44%) were hypoxic. This subset had worse outcomes than those in the typical group with a mortality rate of 50% versus 38%, respectively, although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.27). No significant difference in mortality or length of hospital stay between the groups was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Older patients with atypical presentation of COVID-19 in the community are equally susceptible to poor outcomes. Early detection may improve outcomes and limit community transmission. Primary care practitioners should be vigilant and consider prompt onward referral.