ABSTRACT
In December 2019, Wuhan, China, experienced a highly infectious disease outbreak described as an acute respiratory virus caused by a novel coronavirus strain (COVID-19) (Ruiz & Bell, 2021) that spread quickly worldwide. By mid-October 2020, the total number of confirmed cases and loss of life had surpassed 38 million, with the United States (US) accounting for 7.8 million cases of the disease and over 216,000 deaths (John Hopkins University, 2020). The United States had the highest prevalence rate of COVID-19 worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has significantly impacted the United States, particularly New York City, and State, with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to explore the factors that influenced people's perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines and how those perceptions may have influenced decisions between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Participants (n = 120) were sent an online survey using the Pandemic Subjective Perception (PSP) scale, which was tested based on a previous study by Pelletier (2021). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Immigrants are disproportionally impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and of the reported positive cases and fatalities, many are from historically disadvantaged groups that face severe health inequities and suffer from health disparities. Therefore, in the current research, using cross-sectional survey of immigrants, we conduct an exploratory investigation to examine their Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine. In addition, we explore the role of subjective norms and response efficacy on vaccine-related decision making. The findings reveal that most participants were knowledgeable regarding the COVID-19 infection and the vaccine and practiced important safety behaviors to contain the spread. In addition, a significant effect of social norms and response efficacy on vaccine intentions were found suggesting the importance of integrating normative, culturally informed messaging while designing health campaigns for this hard-to-reach population. Given the small sample size, due to it being a hard-to-reach population, the findings should not be generalized, and future research should extend the study to draw broader conclusions. Implications of the findings are discussed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of American Behavioral Scientist is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
This dissertation investigated vaccine-related content on two dominant social networks, Facebook and Twitter, and explored how this content could influence vaccine decision making. First, Study 1 included a framing analysis of paid vaccine advertisements collected from the Facebook Ad Library during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overarching frames included: support for vaccines;dual benefits, including individual and community protection;presentation of information;and the necessity for liberty in medical choices (anti-vaccine frame). COVID-19 specific frames included: 1) vaccine development and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) COVID-19 as a backdrop to illustrate the need for other vaccines. Study 2 included a thematic analysis of tweets utilizing the #DoctorsSpeakUp hashtag, which was designed by physicians to collectively promote vaccines on Twitter but was hijacked by anti-vaccine advocates. Through the lens of counterpublic sphere theory, analysis revealed that the hashtag hijacking by a scientific counterpublic was successful, and the majority of tweets were oriented against vaccines. Five overarching themes emerged in anti-vaccine hijacked tweets, including: personal experience with vaccine injury, profits over people, a lack of liability, a perception that doctors were uninformed, and "We are the Herd." Finally, Study 3 included interviews with vaccine-accepting mothers to understand their perceptions of paid vaccine advertisements on Facebook, identified in Study 1, through the lens of Source Credibility Theory. Thematic analysis revealed five themes related to current ads, including: one-sided pro-vaccine advertisements;"you can't tell me what to do;" the perception of an underlying agenda;the need for more scientific data-driven information;and a sense of confusion and lack of clarity related to ad elements. Relevant credibility cues included sponsor, context, image selection, wording, and spokesperson of each advertisement. Overall, the three studies revealed key findings, including the politicization of vaccines and vaccine-related messaging on social media, the need for neutral, credible sources and medical provider buy-in, the need for a change in message emphasis from community to personal health, and recommendations for the best platform and strategy to promote vaccines on social networks. Practical and theoretical implications for advertising practitioners and public health communicators were provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.
Subject(s)
Patient Preference , Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Choice Behavior , Decision Making , Humans , Parents , VaccinationABSTRACT
Aspects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed from routine vaccines, including emergency use authorizations, the prioritization of access, and the politicization of messaging. Subsequently, many parents reported lower vaccine confidence relative to routine vaccines, and vaccination coverage stalled below targets. This study aimed to understand parental vaccine decision making and compare COVID-19 versus routine vaccine decision making. We conducted nine virtual focus groups between 25 February 2022-11 March 2022 with parents (n = 41) of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's patients, recruited via email and stratified by vaccine hesitancy status (non-hesitant vs. hesitant). Transcripts were analyzed using the vaccine hesitancy matrix domains. Of 41 total participants, 25 (61.0%) were non-hesitant, 16 (39.0%) were hesitant or their children were not up-to-date on adolescent vaccines, and most self-identified as female (95.1%) and White/Caucasian (61.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and many of their first children (n = 26, 63.4%) were vaccinated against influenza. Several themes emerged regarding decision making: individual influences, group influences, vaccine and vaccine program influences, and contextual influences. While some influences were similar for routine and COVID-19 vaccine decision making (e.g., needing evidence-based information), other factors were vaccine- or situation-specific. Building trust requires a multi-faceted concerted effort that involves addressing the complex vaccine decision-making process.
ABSTRACT
Adolescent COVID-19 vaccination has stalled at 53% in the United States. Vaccinating adolescents remains critical to preventing the continued transmission of COVID-19, the emergence of variants, and rare but serious disease in children, and it is the best preventive measure available to return to in-person schooling. We investigated parent-adolescent COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. Between 24 February and 15 March 2021, we conducted surveys and 12 focus groups with 46 parent-adolescent dyads in Southern California. Parents and adolescents completed a survey prior to participation in a focus group discussion, which focused on exploring COVID-19 vaccine acceptance or uncertainty and was guided by the 5C vaccine hesitancy model. Parents uncertain about vaccinating adolescents expressed low vaccine confidence and high COVID-19 disease risk complacency. Parents who accepted COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents expressed high confidence in health authority vaccine recommendations, high perceived COVID-19 risk, and collective responsibility to vaccinate children. Additionally, unique pandemic-related factors of vaccine acceptance included vaccinating for emotional health, resuming social activities, and vaccine mandates. Among parents, 46% were willing to vaccinate their adolescent, 11% were not, and 43% were unsure. Among adolescents, 63% were willing to vaccinate. Despite vaccine availability, 47% of adolescents remain unvaccinated against COVID-19. Factors associated with vaccine uncertainty and acceptability inform health care practitioner, school, community, and public health messaging to reach parents and adolescents.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , California , Child , Humans , United States , Vaccination/psychologyABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic generated a sense of threat in the society, leading to social isolation and mental health deterioration. A great deal of hope for the development of herd immunity was placed in preventive vaccinations. The survey, performed before vaccine campaign between September 26-October 27, 2020, during the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Poland with the Computer Assisted Web Interviews method. The study was partly community based and partly open to the public. Participants were invited to complete the survey using Google forms via social media (Facebook, WhatsApp). The survey was also distributed 54 times at the request of interested persons via e-mail. Total 1,043 questionnaires were assessed for eligibility and 41 were excluded (13 because of the age under 18, and 28 due to refusal to participate: non-response after sending questionnaire via e-mail). Finally 1,001 questionnaires were included to the study and statistical analysis was performed on the basis of the 1,001 responses. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: a sociodemographic survey, a questionnaire assessing the knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 and the General Health Questionnaire-28. Participants also determined their attitude toward being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The questionnaire was completed by a total of 1,001 participants: 243 people declared that they will not get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Majority of people declaring the willingness to vaccinate were representatives of medical professions, suffering from chronic diseases, with higher values on the total GHQ-28 scale and the subscales: anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and somatic dysfunction. Loss of income, difficult access to health care, recognizing the restrictions as excessive and knowledge about COVID-19 were found as significant positive determinants of the reluctance to vaccinate. Greater readiness to vaccinate can be associated with greater certainty about its effectiveness and a hypothetical collectivist attitude. Experiencing anxiety and psychopathological symptoms are risk factors for infection, but can also be conducive to reliance on information about vaccination presented in the media. Reluctance to vaccinate may result from greater awareness of the complexity of the disease, and thus less faith in the effectiveness of vaccines.
ABSTRACT
Vaccine hesitancy can be heightened due to increasing negative reports about vaccines. Emphasizing the social benefits of vaccination may shift individual attention from individual to social benefit of vaccination and hence promote prosocial vaccination. In six rounds of a population-based survey conducted over one major community epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong from June to November 2020, we manipulated the question asking about acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine with or without emphasizing the social benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 (prosocial priming) and monitored the changes of vaccine confidence by news media sentiment on vaccines. Population-weighted percentages of accepting COVID-19 vaccines by priming condition and vaccine confidence were compared across survey rounds. Logit regression models assessed the main effect of prosocial priming and the modification effects of vaccine confidence and perceived personal risk from COVID-19 on acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. We found that prosocial priming significantly increased acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines across all survey rounds except for Round 3 when incidence of COVID-19 reached a peak. Vaccine confidence significantly declined in Round 6 when news media sentiment on vaccines became predominantly negative. The effect of prosocial priming on promoting vaccine acceptance was significantly greater in participants with low vaccine confidence and those perceiving the severity of COVID-19 to be mild/very mild. Our study suggests that packaging vaccination against COVID-19 as a prosocial behaviour can help overcome low vaccine confidence and promote prosocial vaccination particularly when disease incidence temporarily declines and the public perceive low severity of COVID-19.