Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Am J Prev Med ; 2023 Jan 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239286

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions.

2.
PLoS One ; 18(2): e0281497, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238253

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Around one-third of Americans reported they were unwilling to get a COVID-19 vaccine in April 2021. This focus group study aimed to provide insights on the factors contributing to unvaccinated adults' hesitancy or refusal to get vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. METHOD: Ipsos recruited 59 unvaccinated US adults who were vaccine hesitant (i.e., conflicted about or opposed to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination) using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Trained facilitators led a total of 10 focus groups via video-conference in March and April 2021. Two coders manually coded the data from each group using a coding frame based on the focus group discussion guide. The coding team collaborated in analyzing the data for key themes. RESULTS: Data analysis of transcripts from the focus groups illuminated four main themes associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: lack of trust in experts and institutions; concern about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines; resistance towards prescriptive guidance and restrictions; and, despite personal reluctance or unwillingness to get vaccinated, acceptance of others getting vaccinated. DISCUSSION: Vaccine confidence communication strategies should address individual concerns, describe the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, and highlight evolving science using factural and neutral presentations of information to foster trust.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , Focus Groups , Problem Solving , Vaccination
3.
Prev Med ; : 107341, 2022 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2241577

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the US has marked demographic and geographical disparities, but few explanations exist for them. Our paper aimed to identify behavioral and social drivers that explain these vaccination disparities. Participants were a national sample of 3562 American adults, recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Participants completed an online survey in spring 2021, when COVD-19 vaccination was available for higher-risk groups but not yet available to all US adults. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccination stage (intentions and vaccine uptake), constructs from the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) domains (thinking and feeling, social processes, and direct behavior change), self-reported exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information, and demographic characteristics. Analyses used multiple imputation to address item nonresponse and linear regressions to conduct mediation analyses. Higher COVID-19 vaccination stage was strongly associated with older age, liberal political ideology, and higher income in adjusted analyses (all p < .001). Vaccination stage was more modestly associated with urbanicity, white race, and Hispanic ethnicity (all p < .05). Some key mediators that explained more than one-third of demographic differences in vaccination stage were perceived vaccine effectiveness, social norms, and recommendations from family and friends across most demographic characteristics (all p < .05). Other mediators included safety concerns, trust, altruism, provider recommendation, and information seeking. Access to vaccination, barriers to vaccination, and self-efficacy explained few demographic differences. One of the most reliable explanations for demographic differences in COVID-19 vaccination stage is social processes, including social norms, recommendations, and altruism. Interventions to promote COVID-19 vaccination should address social processes and other domains in the IVM.

4.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0268063, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1849805

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need to identify the drivers of willingness to receive new vaccines against emerging and epidemic diseases. A discrete choice experiment is the ideal approach to evaluating how individuals weigh multiple attributes simultaneously. We assessed the degree to which six attributes were associated with willingness to be vaccinated among university students in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a single-profile discrete choice experiment at Makerere University in 2019. Participants were asked whether or not they would be vaccinated in 8 unique scenarios where attributes varied by disease risk, disease severity, advice for or against vaccination from trusted individuals, recommendations from influential figures, whether the vaccine induced indirect protection, and side effects. We calculated predicted probabilities of vaccination willingness using mixed logistic regression models, comparing health professional students with all other disciplines. FINDINGS: Of the 1576 participants, 783 (49.8%) were health professional students and 685 (43.5%) were female. Vaccination willingness was high (78%), and higher among health students than other students. We observed the highest vaccination willingness for the most severe disease outcomes and the greatest exposure risks, along with the Minister of Health's recommendation or a vaccine that extended secondary protection to others. Mild side effects and recommendations against vaccination diminished vaccination willingness. INTERPRETATION: Our results can be used to develop evidence-based messaging to encourage uptake for new vaccines. Future vaccination campaigns, such as for COVID-19 vaccines in development, should consider acknowledging individual risk of exposure and disease severity and incorporate recommendations from key health leaders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases, Emerging , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Students , Uganda , Universities , Vaccination
5.
J Am Coll Health ; : 1-7, 2022 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2028815

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the frequency of preventative COVID-19 behaviors and vaccination willingness among United States (US) college and university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: Participants (N = 653) were ≥18 years old and students at institutions for higher education in the US in March 2020. Methods: Students self-reported preventative behaviors, willingness to be vaccinated, and social contact patterns during four waves of online surveys from May-August 2020. Results: Student engagement in preventative behaviors was generally high. The majority of students intended to be vaccinated (81.5%). Overall, there were no significant differences in the proportion adopting preventative behaviors or in willingness to be vaccinated by sex or geographic location. The most common reason for willingness to get vaccinated was wanting to contribute to ending COVID-19 outbreaks (44.7%). Conclusions: Early in the pandemic, college students primarily reported willingness to vaccinate and adherence to preventative behaviors. Outreach strategies are needed to continue this momentum.

6.
Vaccine ; 40(51): 7476-7482, 2022 Dec 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1907857

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. METHODS: Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. RESULTS: Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). CONCLUSION: In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adult , United States , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Health Personnel , Surveys and Questionnaires , Attitude , Delivery of Health Care
7.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(6): e2115850, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1251884

ABSTRACT

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing , Public Health , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disclosure/statistics & numerical data , Health Services, Indigenous , Humans , Incidence , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL