Lessons Learned from Health Disparities in Coronavirus Disease-2019 in the United States.

In the United States, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionally affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Such historically marginalized groups are more often employed in low-wage jobs without health insurance and have higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 than non-Latinx White individuals. Mistrust in the health care system, language barriers, and limited health literacy have hindered vaccination rates in minorities, further exacerbating health disparities rooted in structural, institutional, and socioeconomic inequities. In this article, we discuss the lessons learned over the last 2 years and how to mitigate health disparities moving forward.

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Sweden that causally measures the unintended consequences of offering financial incentives for taking the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We use a unique combination of random exposure to financial incentives, population-wide administrative vaccination records and rich survey data. We find no negative consequences of financial incentives; we can reject even small negative impacts of offering financial incentives on future vaccination uptake, morals, trust and perceived safety. In a complementary study, we find that informing US residents about the existence of state incentive programmes also has no negative consequences. Our findings inform not only the academic debate on financial incentives for behaviour change but also policy-makers who consider using financial incentives to change behaviour.

COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences of University Students and Staff in Hong Kong.

Importance: COVID-19 has required universities to rapidly develop vaccination policies for students and staff, yet little is known about the preferences of these individuals toward vaccination. Objective: To quantify student and staff preferences for COVID-19 vaccination at a university in Hong Kong. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from July 20 to September 21, 2021, before the announcement of a campus-wide vaccine mandate. A survey of 42 451 eligible university students and staff used discrete-choice experiment methods to quantify 7 attributes of COVID-19 vaccination: risk of a mild or moderate adverse event after vaccination, risk of a severe adverse event after vaccination, efficacy against COVID-19 infection, efficacy against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection, duration of protection after vaccination, incentive for completing vaccination, and out-of-pocket costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the preferences of attributes for COVID-19 vaccines and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) adjusted for background characteristics, role, vaccination, and COVID-19 infection status of family or friends, adverse event status after vaccination among family and friends of participants, and scenario block. Results: Among 42 451 eligible university students and staff invited, 3423 individuals completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 27.1 [9.9] years; 2053 [60.0%] women). Participants included 2506 students (73.2%) and 917 staff (26.8%), with a response rate of 8.1%. Quarantine-free travel was preferred (ß = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; mWTP: $235.9; 95% CI, $190.3-$294.2), followed by efficacy against any COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.29-0.32; mWTP: $84.1; 95% CI, $71.8-$100.8), against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27; mWTP: $69.7; 95% CI, $465-$653), and risk of severe adverse events following vaccination (ß = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21; mWTP: -$66.8; 95% CI, -$81.5 to -$55.3). Participants were less concerned about protection duration (ß = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18; mWTP: $46.0; 95% CI, $38.6-$56.2) and risk of mild to moderate adverse events (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10; mWTP: -$32.7; 95% CI, -$41.2 to -$26.4). Conclusions and Relevance: Preference of all attributes were significant and were considered important by the participants for vaccine decision-making. Insights drawn could assist policy makers in future vaccination decisions, such as campus vaccine mandate and requirement of a third dose.

Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Vaccine Against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Among Parents of Boys in Central Vietnam.

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for adolescents was recommended as an effective prevention strategy of HPV-related cancers. In Vietnam, HPV vaccination has not been introduced to male adolescent. This study was conducted to examine the acceptance of having boys vaccinated against HPV and its underlying reasoning, and to identify their parent's willingness to pay (WTP) for HPV vaccination in central Vietnam. 785 parents of boys were directly interviewed based on a structured questionnaire. Parent's acceptability of HPV vaccine for their sons was identified by one question with response on 3-point scale (agree, don't know, and disagree). Multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine contributing factors to participant's acceptance. Bidding game method was applied to elicit WTP values for HPV vaccination with initial bid of 161.2 USD. The results showed that 49.2% of parents agreed to have their sons vaccinated against HPV. Factors that influenced parent's acceptance including son's age older than 12 years (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.08-1.98); being eldest son (OR = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.13-2.19), being mother (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.01-1.91), parents with high educational level (OR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.11-2.47) and their knowledge of HPV and HPV vaccine (OR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.23-2.65). Average WTP value for full doses of HPV vaccine was 137.5 USD, ranging between 9 USD and 188.3 USD. Parents' knowledge of HPV and HPV vaccine was the only factor affecting WTP value (Rho: 0.11; p-value: 0.030). The findings suggest a strategy be introduced for HPV vaccination to male adolescents in Vietnam.

The Value(s) of Vaccination: Building the Scientific Evidence According to a Value-Based Healthcare Approach.

Objectives: To provide a new value-based immunization approach collating the available scientific evidence on the topic. Methods: Four value pillars (personal, allocative, technical, and societal) applied to vaccination field were investigated. A systematic literature review was performed querying three database from December 24th, 2010 to May 27th, 2020. It included studies on vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that mentioned the term value in any part and which were conducted in advanced economies. An in-depth analysis was performed on studies addressing value as key element. Results: Overall, 107 studies were considered. Approximately half of the studies addressed value as a key element but in most of cases (83.3%) only a single pillar was assessed. Furthermore, the majority of papers addressed the technical value by looking only at classical methods for economic assessment of vaccinations whereas very few dealt with societal and allocative pillars. Conclusions: Estimating the vaccinations value is very complex, even though their usefulness is certain. The assessment of the whole value of vaccines and vaccinations is still limited to some domains and should encompass the wider impact on economic growth and societies.

Testing fractional doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

Due to the enormous economic, health, and social costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high expected social returns to investing in parallel in multiple approaches to accelerating vaccination. We argue there are high expected social returns to investigating the scope for lowering the dosage of some COVID-19 vaccines. While existing evidence is not dispositive, available clinical data on the immunogenicity of lower doses combined with evidence of a high correlation between neutralizing antibody response and vaccine efficacy suggests that half or even quarter doses of some vaccines could generate high levels of protection, particularly against severe disease and death, while potentially expanding supply by 450 million to 1.55 billion doses per month, based on supply projections for 2021. An epidemiological model suggests that, even if fractional doses are less effective than standard doses, vaccinating more people faster could substantially reduce total infections and deaths. The costs of further testing alternative doses are much lower than the expected public health and economic benefits. However, commercial incentives to generate evidence on fractional dosing are weak, suggesting that testing may not occur without public investment. Governments could support either experimental or observational evaluations of fractional dosing, for either primary or booster shots. Discussions with researchers and government officials in multiple countries where vaccines are scarce suggests strong interest in these approaches.

Money is not everything: experimental evidence that payments do not increase willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Rapid, large-scale uptake of new vaccines against COVID-19 will be crucial to decrease infections and end the pandemic. In a recent article in this journal, Julian Savulescu argued in favour of monetary incentives to convince more people to be vaccinated once the vaccine becomes available. To evaluate the potential of his suggestion, we conducted an experiment investigating the impact of payments and the communication of individual and prosocial benefits of high vaccination rates on vaccination intentions. Our results revealed that none of these interventions or their combinations increased willingness to be vaccinated shortly after a vaccine becomes available. Consequently, decision makers should be cautious about introducing monetary incentives and instead focus on interventions that increase confidence in vaccine safety first, as this has shown to be an especially important factor regarding the demand for the new COVID-19 vaccines.

An ultra-low-cost electroporator with microneedle electrodes (ePatch) for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other pathogens with pandemic potential requires safe, protective, inexpensive, and easily accessible vaccines that can be developed and manufactured rapidly at a large scale. DNA vaccines can achieve these criteria, but induction of strong immune responses has often required bulky, expensive electroporation devices. Here, we report an ultra-low-cost (<1 USD), handheld (<50 g) electroporation system utilizing a microneedle electrode array ("ePatch") for DNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The low cost and small size are achieved by combining a thumb-operated piezoelectric pulser derived from a common household stove lighter that emits microsecond, bipolar, oscillatory electric pulses and a microneedle electrode array that targets delivery of high electric field strength pulses to the skin's epidermis. Antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 induced by this electroporation system in mice were strong and enabled at least 10-fold dose sparing compared to conventional intramuscular or intradermal injection of the DNA vaccine. Vaccination was well tolerated with mild, transient effects on the skin. This ePatch system is easily portable, without any battery or other power source supply, offering an attractive, inexpensive approach for rapid and accessible DNA vaccination to combat COVID-19, as well as other epidemics.

Monetary incentives increase COVID-19 vaccinations.

The stalling of COVID-19 vaccination rates threatens public health. To increase vaccination rates, governments across the world are considering the use of monetary incentives. Here we present evidence about the effect of guaranteed payments on COVID-19 vaccination uptake. We ran a large preregistered randomized controlled trial (with 8286 participants) in Sweden and linked the data to population-wide administrative vaccination records. We found that modest monetary payments of 24 US dollars (200 Swedish kronor) increased vaccination rates by 4.2 percentage points (P = 0.005), from a baseline rate of 71.6%. By contrast, behavioral nudges increased stated intentions to become vaccinated but had only small and not statistically significant impacts on vaccination rates. The results highlight the potential of modest monetary incentives to raise vaccination rates.

COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

Cheap and Commonplace: Making the Case for BCG and γδ T Cells in COVID-19.

Antigen-specific vaccines developed for the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate a remarkable achievement and are currently being used in high income countries with much success. However, new SARS-CoV-2 variants are threatening this success via mutations that lessen the efficacy of antigen-specific antibodies. One simple approach to assisting with this issue is focusing on strategies that build on the non-specific protection afforded by the innate immune response. The BCG vaccine has been shown to provide broad protection beyond tuberculosis disease, including against respiratory viruses, and ongoing studies are investigating its efficacy as a tool against SARS-CoV-2. Gamma delta (γδ) T cells, particularly the Vδ2 subtype, undergo rapid expansion after BCG vaccination due to MHC-independent mechanisms. Consequently, γδ T cells can produce diverse defenses against virally infected cells, including direct cytotoxicity, death receptor ligands, and pro-inflammatory cytokines. They can also assist in stimulating the adaptive immune system. BCG is affordable, commonplace and non-specific, and therefore could be a useful tool to initiate innate protection against new SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, considerations must also be made to BCG vaccine supply and the prioritization of countries where it is most needed to combat tuberculosis first and foremost.

Lives and Costs Saved by Expanding and Expediting Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: With multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important. METHODS: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the United States population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (February 2020-December 2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage. RESULTS: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876 800 (217 000-2 398 000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40% and 50% coverage can prevent 1.5 million cases, 56 240 hospitalizations, and 6660 deaths; gain 77 590 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses. Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215 790 hospitalizations, 26 370 deaths, 206 520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with the time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the fall/winter.

Acceptance and willingness to pay for COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination and the willingness to pay (WTP) for it, and investigate associated factors among pregnant women in Vietnam. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of pregnant women in two obstetric hospitals in Hanoi and Ca Mau provinces, Vietnam. Data on acceptance and WTP for COVID-19, demographic characteristics, maternal characteristics, and risk perceptions toward COVID-19 were collected. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were performed to identify factors associated with the acceptance and WTP for the vaccine. RESULTS: Of 651 pregnant women, 60.4% accepted to receive the vaccine, and 82.6% of the total pregnant women were willing to pay for a COVID-19 vaccine with the mean amount of WTP of USD 15.2 (SD ± 27.4). The most common reason for refusing vaccination was "Worry about the safety of the vaccine" (66.9%) in Hanoi and "The preventive effect of COVID-19 is low" (45.2%) in Ca Mau. A higher income, having children, self-perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, and perceived risk to friends were associated with a higher likelihood of acceptance and WTP for the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing COVID-19 vaccination and resource mobilisation among pregnant women in Vietnam is feasible, although communication programmes to improve risk perception and awareness about vaccine should be developed for facilitating acceptance of the vaccine.

Socioeconomic privilege and political ideology are associated with racial disparity in COVID-19 vaccination.

Vaccine uptake is critical for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 in the United States, but structural inequities pose a serious threat to progress. Racial disparities in vaccination persist despite the increased availability of vaccines. We ask what factors are associated with such disparities. We combine data from state, federal, and other sources to estimate the relationship between social determinants of health and racial disparities in COVID-19 vaccinations at the county level. Analyzing vaccination data from 19 April 2021, when nearly half of the US adult population was at least partially vaccinated, we find associations between racial disparities in COVID-19 vaccination and median income (negative), disparity in high school education (positive), and vote share for the Republican party in the 2020 presidential election (negative), while vaccine hesitancy is not related to disparities. We examine differences in associations for COVID-19 vaccine uptake as compared with influenza vaccine. Key differences include an amplified role for socioeconomic privilege factors and political ideology, reflective of the unique societal context in which the pandemic has unfolded.