Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.207
Filter
3.
Front Public Health ; 10: 917732, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2154833

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) in China using existing international clinical trials and real-world evidence. Methods: Through a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI, studies investigating the effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were identified, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data. Moreover, a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese context from a societal perspective. Results of the meta-analysis, along with cost data from official websites and works of literature were used to populate the model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results. Results: A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to no immunization, the effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death were 65.18% (95% CI 62.62, 67.75), 79.10% (95% CI 71.69, 86.51), 90.46% (95% CI 89.42, 91.50), and 86.69% (95% CI 85.68, 87.70); and the efficacy against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were 70.56% (95% CI 57.87, 83.24) and 100% (95% CI 61.72, 100). Inactivated vaccine vaccination prevented more infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths with lower total costs, thus was cost-saving from a societal perspective in China. Base-case analysis results were robust in the one-way sensitivity analysis, and the percentage of ICU admission or death and direct medical cost ranked the top influential factors in our models. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vaccination had a 100% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusion: Inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and avoiding COVID-19 related death, and COVID-19 vaccination program is cost-saving from societal perspective in China.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , China/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vaccines, Inactivated/therapeutic use
4.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 28(12): 1429-1438, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2145819

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for adults and children varies depending on societal factors, race, and trust ascribed to the source of vaccine information. OBJECTIVE: To assess COVID-19 vaccination rates and trust levels for vaccine information by race at 2 time points. METHODS: Online cross-sectional data from US adults were collected in February/March 2021 (T1) and November 2021 (T2). Questions included vaccination status, reasons for vaccine refusal, trust levels for vaccine information and the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale. At T2, parents were asked about vaccination status of children aged 12-18 years and intent for children aged 5-11 years. Vaccination rates and trust levels for vaccine information were measured. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics predictive of receiving COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Vaccination rates were 20.2% and 70.8% at T1 and T2, respectively. At T1 and T2, higher proportions of White (23.2% and 72.0%) and Other race (14.4% and 75.2%) respondents were vaccinated relative to Black respondents (9.6% and 64.4%) (P < 0.05). In descending order, respondents' doctors, family members, and pharmacists were the most trusted information sources. Black parents, relative to White and Other parents with unvaccinated children aged 12-18 years or who were not very likely to vaccinate younger children, reported lowest physician trust (P < 0.01). At T1, being married, college educated, and older and having greater Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale scores and a higher number of comorbidities predicted a higher likelihood of being vaccinated. Being Black, having a median household income less than $100,000, and residing in the Northeast or Midwest, relative to the West, predicted a decreased likelihood of being vaccinated. At T2, race and comorbidities were no longer predictive of vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Racial variation in vaccination status decreased from T1 to T2. Physician trust predicted vaccination status and intent regardless of race. Respondents' doctors, family members, and pharmacists are trusted sources of vaccine information, and targeting these influencers may reduce vaccination hesitancy. DISCLOSURES: Dr Brown reports personal fees from Taiho Oncology, outside the submitted work. Dr Morlock reports personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, Heron Therapeutics, Evofem Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Taiho Oncology, outside the submitted work. Amy Morlock reports personal fees from both AbbVie (formerly Allergan) and Ironwood, outside the submitted work. Drs Blakolmer and Heidari have nothing to disclose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intention , Adult , Child , Humans , Trust , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Vaccination , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0278060, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140682

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we study the relationship between trust and COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Vaccinating a large share of the population is essential for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many individuals refuse to get vaccinated, which might be related to a lack of trust. Using unique survey data from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that trust in government authorities, science, and pharmaceutical companies are important predictors of individual vaccination intentions. We do not find evidence that trust in strangers, the healthcare system, or the media predict intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Humans , Trust , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Intention , Pandemics/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Lithuania/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Vaccination
6.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 2137, 2022 11 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139227

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: What leads healthy people to enter in a volunteer register for clinical trials? This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the decision to volunteer in clinical trials for a COVID-19 vaccine and social capital, in a sample of healthy volunteers in Italy. Since social capital is characterized by trust, reciprocity, and social and political participation, we claim that it is key in leading individuals to actively take action to protect public health, and to take a risk for the (potential) benefit not only of themselves but for the entire community. METHODS: This study was conducted through the administration of a questionnaire to healthy volunteers registered for a phase 1 clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine in the Unit Research Centre of ASST-Monza, in September 2020. The primary purpose of a phase 1 study is to evaluate the safety of a new drug candidate before it proceeds to further clinical studies. To approximate a case-control study, we randomly matched the 318 respondents to healthy volunteers (cases) with 318 people randomly selected by Round 9 of the European Social Survey (controls), using three variables, which we considered to be associated with the decision to volunteer: gender, age, and education level. To execute this matching procedure, we used the "ccmatch" module in STATA. RESULTS: The findings highlight the positive impact of social capital in the choice of healthy individuals to volunteer in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Controlling for possible confounding factors, some exemplary results show that people with a high level of general trust have a greater likelihood of volunteering compared to people with low trust (OR = 2.75, CI = 1.58-4.77); we also found that it is more probable that volunteers are people who have actively taken action to improve things compared with people who have not (for individuals who did three or more actions: OR = 7.54, CI = 4.10-13.86). People who reported voting (OR = 3.91, CI = 1.70-8.99) and participating in social activities more than other people of their age (OR = 2.89, CI = 1.82-4.60) showed a higher probability to volunteer. CONCLUSIONS: Together with the adoption of urgent health measures in response to COVID-19, government policymakers should also promote social capital initiatives to encourage individuals to actively engage in actions aimed at protecting collective health. Our findings make an empirical contribution to the research on vaccines and its intersection with social behaviour, and they provide useful insights for policymakers to manage current and future disease outbreaks and to enhance the enrolment in vaccine trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Capital , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Case-Control Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Trust
7.
BMC Prim Care ; 23(1): 81, 2022 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139149

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among primary healthcare workers (HCW) remain poorly understood. This study aims to identify factors associated with vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among HCW. METHODS: A multi-centre online cross-sectional survey was performed across 6 primary care clinics from May to June 2021, after completion of staff vaccination exercise. Demographics, profession, years working in healthcare, residential status, presence of chronic medical conditions, self-perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 and previous influenza vaccination were collected. HCW who accepted vaccine were then asked to rank their top 5 reasons for vaccine acceptance; HCW who were vaccine hesitant had to complete the 15-item 5C scale on psychological antecedents of vaccination. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty seven out of 1182 eligible HCW responded (47.1%). Twenty nine were excluded due to contraindications. Among 528 respondents, vaccine acceptance rate was 94.9% (n = 501). There were no statistically significant differences in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between sex, age, ethnicity, profession, number of years in healthcare, living alone, presence of chronic diseases, self-perceived risk or previous influenza vaccination. The top 3 reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance ranked by 501 HCW were to protect their family and friends, protect themselves from COVID-19 and due to high risk of acquiring COVID-19 because of their jobs. HCW with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 exposure were 3.4 times more likely to rank 'high risk at work' as one of the top reasons for vaccine acceptance (χ2 = 41.9, p < 0.001, OR = 3.38, 95%C.I. 2.32-4.93). High mean scores of 'Calculation' (5.79) and low scores for 'Constraint' (2.85) for 5C components among vaccine hesitant HCW (n = 27) highlighted that accessibility was not a concern; HCW took time to weigh vaccine benefits and consequences. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a minute issue among Singapore primary HCW, having achieved close to 95% acceptance rate. COVID-19 exposure risk influences vaccine acceptance; time is required for HCW to weigh benefits against the risks. Future studies can focus on settings with higher hesitancy rates, and acceptance of booster vaccinations with the emergence of delta and omicron variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Urinary Bladder Diseases , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore/epidemiology
9.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e064301, 2022 11 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2137765

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to first assess the knowledge and perception of first-year university students in Iraq about COVID-19 in general and SARS-CoV-2 latest variant of concern, and to evaluate the attitudes towards protection measures including vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted among newly enrolled students at the American University of Iraq-Baghdad. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to test an association between the outcomes measured on a 5-point Likert scale and the binary and the categorical independent variables, respectively. χ2 test was used to test the association between nominal categorical variables, while Kendall's τ-b was used for ordinal variables. PARTICIPANTS: Students (n=432) were invited to fill out a survey specifically tailored to assess their knowledge, perception and attitude towards Omicron variant and COVID-19 vaccines acceptance. 363 students enrolled in various majors participated in this study. RESULTS: Assessment of COVID-19 knowledge and perception revealed that students still lack reliable info and data about FDA-approved treatment options (70.5%), SARS-CoV-2 variants (96.5%) and approved vaccines. Students' attitude and practices towards recommended safety measures should be reassessed to better manage the pandemic. Adherence level was shown to be associated with the belief in its capacity to effectively manage the new variant. Interestingly, 85% of the students have received at least one dose of approved vaccine. A significant positive correlation was detected between the level of adherence to recommended precautions and the intention to take a third booster shot if proven effective. CONCLUSIONS: Students' reliable knowledge about COVID-19 pandemic including the various strains and approved vaccines should be improved to better manage the pandemic and set foundations for a more appropriate approach when another pandemic occurs. Special workshops should be organised to ensure that students and the public have a more trusted source of information about COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , United States , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Universities , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Iraq , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Students , Perception
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(11): e2243127, 2022 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2127460

ABSTRACT

Importance: New York City, an early epicenter of the pandemic, invested heavily in its COVID-19 vaccination campaign to mitigate the burden of disease outbreaks. Understanding the return on investment (ROI) of this campaign would provide insights into vaccination programs to curb future COVID-19 outbreaks. Objective: To estimate the ROI of the New York City COVID-19 vaccination campaign by estimating the tangible direct and indirect costs from a societal perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model of disease transmission was calibrated to confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 in New York City between December 14, 2020, and January 31, 2022. This simulation model was validated with observed patterns of reported hospitalizations and deaths during the same period. Exposures: An agent-based counterfactual scenario without vaccination was simulated using the calibrated model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs of health care and deaths were estimated in the actual pandemic trajectory with vaccination and in the counterfactual scenario without vaccination. The savings achieved by vaccination, which were associated with fewer outpatient visits, emergency department visits, emergency medical services, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions, were also estimated. The value of a statistical life (VSL) lost due to COVID-19 death and the productivity loss from illness were accounted for in calculating the ROI. Results: During the study period, the vaccination campaign averted an estimated $27.96 (95% credible interval [CrI], $26.19-$29.84) billion in health care expenditures and 315 724 (95% CrI, 292 143-340 420) potential years of life lost, averting VSL loss of $26.27 (95% CrI, $24.39-$28.21) billion. The estimated net savings attributable to vaccination were $51.77 (95% CrI, $48.50-$55.85) billion. Every $1 invested in vaccination yielded estimated savings of $10.19 (95% CrI, $9.39-$10.87) in direct and indirect costs of health outcomes that would have been incurred without vaccination. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this modeling study showed an association of the New York City COVID-19 vaccination campaign with reduction in severe outcomes and avoidance of substantial economic losses. This significant ROI supports continued investment in improving vaccine uptake during the ongoing pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Programs , Investments
12.
PLoS Med ; 19(11): e1004037, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140363

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have a moderate to high degree of protection against reinfection, though seemingly less so when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 started to circulate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death, in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to assess the effect of time since vaccination during periods with different dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study used a nationwide cohort design including all individuals with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were alive, and residing in Denmark between 1 January 2020 and 31 January 2022. Using Danish nationwide registries, we obtained information on SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 vaccination, age, sex, comorbidity, staying at hospital, and country of origin. The study population included were individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Estimates of VE against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for age, sex, country of origin, comorbidity, staying at hospital, calendar time, and test incidence using a Cox regression model. The VE estimates were calculated separately for three periods with different dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants (Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), or Omicron (B.1.1.529)) and by time since vaccination using unvaccinated as the reference. In total, 148,527 person-years and 44,192 SARS-CoV-2 infections were included for the analysis regarding reinfections. The study population comprised of 209,814 individuals infected before or during the Alpha period, 292,978 before or during the Delta period, and 245,530 before or during the Omicron period. Of these, 40,281 individuals had completed their primary vaccination series during the Alpha period (19.2%), 190,026 during the Delta period (64.9%), and 158,563 during the Omicron period (64.6%). VE against reinfection following any COVID-19 vaccine type administered in Denmark, peaked at 71% (95% CI: -Inf to 100%) at 104 days or more after vaccination during the Alpha period, 94% (95% CI: 92% to 96%) 14 to 43 days after vaccination during the Delta period, and 60% (95% CI: 58% to 62%) 14 to 43 days after vaccination during the Omicron period. Waning immunity following vaccination was observed and was most pronounced during the Omicron period. Due to too few events, it was not possible to estimate VE for hospitalization and death. Study limitations include potentially undetected reinfections, differences in health-seeking behavior, or risk behavior between the compared groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in previously infected individuals, completing a primary vaccination series was associated with a significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection compared with no vaccination. Even though vaccination seems to protect to a lesser degree against reinfection with the Omicron variant, these findings are of public health relevance as they show that previously infected individuals still benefit from COVID-19 vaccination in all three variant periods.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Reinfection/epidemiology , Reinfection/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Vaccine Efficacy , Denmark/epidemiology
13.
Soc Sci Med ; 313: 115400, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2121487

ABSTRACT

People may choose to receive vaccines in response to pressures that outweigh any concerns that they have. We explored Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples' motivations for, perceptions of choice in, and concerns about, COVID-19 vaccination. We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, including a national survey administered around the time vaccines were first authorized (Dec 2020) followed by qualitative interviews when vaccines were becoming more readily available to adults (May-June 2021). We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and interviews using critical feminist methodologies. Survey respondents self-identified as a Racialized minority (n = 1488) or Indigenous (n = 342), of which 71.4% and 64.6%, respectively, intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Quantitative results indicated perceptions of COVID-19 disease were associated with vaccination intention. For instance, intention was associated with agreement that COVID-19 disease is severe, risk of becoming sick is great, COVID-19 vaccination is necessary, and vaccines available in Canada will be safe (p < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccines were in short supply in Canada when we subsequently completed qualitative interviews with a subset of Racialized minority (n = 17) and Indigenous (n = 10) survey respondents. We coded interview transcripts around three emergent themes relating to governmentality and cultural approaches to intersectional risk theories: feelings of collective responsibility, choice as privilege, and remaining uncertainties about COVID-19 vaccines. For example, some mentioned the responsibility and privilege to receive a vaccine earlier than those living outside of Canada. Some felt constraints on their freedom to choose to receive or refuse a vaccine from intersecting oppressions or their health status. Although all participants intended to get vaccinated, many mentioned uncertainties about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination. Survey respondents and interview participants demonstrated nuanced associations of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy shaped by perspectives of vaccine-related risks, symbolic associations of vaccines with hope, and intersecting social privileges and inequities (including racialization).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Intention , Indigenous Peoples , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Canada
14.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(11): e40701, 2022 Nov 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119470

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Social media provide an ideal medium for breeding and reinforcing vaccine hesitancy, especially during public health emergencies. Algorithmic recommendation-based technology along with users' selective exposure and group pressure lead to online echo chambers, causing inefficiency in vaccination promotion. Avoiding or breaking echo chambers largely relies on key users' behavior. OBJECTIVE: With the ultimate goal of eliminating the impact of echo chambers related to vaccine hesitancy on social media during public health emergencies, the aim of this study was to develop a framework to quantify the echo chamber effect in users' topic selection and attitude contagion about COVID-19 vaccines or vaccinations; detect online opinion leaders and structural hole spanners based on network attributes; and explore the relationships of their behavior patterns and network locations, as well as the relationships of network locations and impact on topic-based and attitude-based echo chambers. METHODS: We called the Sina Weibo application programming interface to crawl tweets related to the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination and user information on Weibo, a Chinese social media platform. Adopting social network analysis, we examined the low echo chamber effect based on topics in representational networks of information, according to attitude in communication flow networks of users under different interactive mechanisms (retweeting, commenting). Statistical and visual analyses were used to characterize behavior patterns of key users (opinion leaders, structural hole spanners), and to explore their function in avoiding or breaking topic-based and attitude-based echo chambers. RESULTS: Users showed a low echo chamber effect in vaccine-related topic selection and attitude interaction. For the former, the homophily was more obvious in retweeting than in commenting, whereas the opposite trend was found for the latter. Speakers, replicators, and monologists tended to be opinion leaders, whereas common users, retweeters, and networkers tended to be structural hole spanners. Both leaders and spanners tended to be "bridgers" to disseminate diverse topics and communicate with users holding cross-cutting attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, users who tended to echo a single topic could bridge multiple attitudes, while users who focused on diverse topics also tended to serve as bridgers for different attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: This study not only revealed a low echo chamber effect in vaccine hesitancy, but further elucidated the underlying reasons from the perspective of users, offering insights for research about the form, degree, and formation of echo chambers, along with depolarization, social capital, stakeholder theory, user portraits, dissemination pattern of topic, and sentiment. Therefore, this work can help to provide strategies for public health and public opinion managers to cooperate toward avoiding or correcting echo chamber chaos and effectively promoting online vaccine campaigns.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Emergencies , COVID-19/prevention & control , China , Attitude
16.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 166(6): 1147-1160, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115913

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This state of the art review focuses on bioethical questions and considerations from research findings and methodological issues, including design and recruitment of participants, in studies related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitation in Black individuals. Ethical concerns identified were applied to otolaryngology with recommendations for improving health inequities within subspecialties. DATA SOURCES: An internet search through PubMed, CINAHL, and socINDEX was conducted to identify articles on COVID-19 vaccine hesitation among the Black population between 2020 and 2021. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review approach was taken to search and analyze the research on this topic, which was coupled with expert analysis in identifying and classifying vital ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The most common COVID-19 vaccine hesitation factors were related to the development of the vaccine, mistrust toward government agencies, and misconceptions about safety and side effects. These findings raised bioethical concerns around mistrust of information, low health literacy, insufficient numbers of Black participants in medical research, and the unique positions of health professionals as trusted sources. These bioethical considerations can be applied in otolaryngology and other health-related areas to aid the public in making informed medical decisions regarding treatments, which may reduce health inequalities among Black Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Addressing ethical questions by decreasing mistrust, tailoring information for specific populations, increasing minority representation in research, and using health professionals as primary sources for communicating health information and recommendations may improve relationships with Black communities and increase acceptance of new knowledge and therapies such as COVID-19 vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Humans , Minority Groups
17.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(45): e31763, 2022 Nov 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115848

ABSTRACT

Large-scale vaccination against the spread and mutation of COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of certain vaccines (87.35% inactivated), mainly Sinovac - CoronaVac and Sinopharm (Beijing) - BBIBP-CorV, during the Omicron BA.2 pandemic by cross-sectional study. The study was conducted in a cabin hospital of Shanghai, China. A total of 1194 Covid-19 patients infected with Omicron BA.2 were enrolled and epidemiological survey information was collected from the subjects through electronic medical records and questionnaires, from March 23th to April 1st in 2022. Vaccine effectiveness was reflected by the occurrence of multi-dimensional symptoms while adjusting for confounding variables. In the unstandardized vaccinated group, the Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness of Omicron BA.2 in the male group was higher than in the female group (P = .0171). In the standardized vaccinated group, vaccine effectiveness in [20, 40) age group was higher than in other age groups (P = .0002). Adjusting for gender and age, Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness of Omicron BA.2 at the specific level was 87.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.35-94.28, P < .0001), and 62.65% (95% CI, 1.47-85.84, P = .047) in the unstandardized vaccinated and the standardized vaccinated group, respectively. Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness of Omicron BA.2 was not apparent at the general level but remained effective for the specific symptom. Further development for the Covid-19 vaccine is necessary.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , Male , Female , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccine Efficacy , China/epidemiology
18.
Indian J Med Res ; 155(5&6): 485-490, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2110463

ABSTRACT

Background & objectives: Studying vaccine hesitancy is important for helping improve vaccine coverage against COVID-19. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a rural community in India. Methods: A cross-sectional study of all adults aged over 18 yr was undertaken during July-August 2021, in a village outside Bengaluru city in southern India. Results: In our study, 68.7 per cent of the eligible 297 adult population accepted vaccination immediately, another 9.4 per cent hesitated but accepted vaccination without delay, a further 10.4 per cent delayed their vaccination and the remaining 11.5 per cent refused vaccination. The prevalence (95% confidence interval) of vaccine hesitancy was 21.9±4.8 per cent. Full vaccination was higher among males (76%) compared to females (58%, P <0.001). Those who hesitated and delayed vaccination (converts) were more likely to be from a nuclear family, whereas those who refused the vaccine were from a joint/three-generation family. Those who refused vaccination were adversely influenced by social media predominantly as also their religious/cultural beliefs and distrust on the pharmaceutical industry. Those who delayed but accepted vaccination were positively influenced by healthcare professionals and others who had accepted the vaccine recently. Geographic factors, cost of vaccine, and mode of administration were not the major concerns. Interpretation & conclusions: Vaccine uptake is a continuum. Our study helped identify the characteristics of those who delayed vaccination versus those who refused vaccination. This will help policymakers, programme managers and healthcare professionals to focus priority action on population subgroups for improving individual- and population-level protection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Male , Adult , Female , Humans , Adolescent , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Rural Population , Cross-Sectional Studies , Prevalence , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination Hesitancy , Vaccination
19.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e059514, 2022 11 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108276

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic of COVID-19 disease has caused severe impact globally. Governments consider vaccination as an effective measure to control pandemic. However, many people have been hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccine, particularly periconceptional and lactating women. Although research has indicated that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a higher risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, as well as severe illness. There appears to be a lack of systematic and comprehensive evidence of the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among periconceptional and lactating women. As a result, it has been essential to investigate periconceptional and lactating women's vaccination views and behaviours. This study will review articles on vaccine hesitancy among periconceptional and lactating women to assess the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search observational studies from 1 November 2019 to 30 October 2021 in the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, WHO COVID-19 Database, CNKI and WanFang Database. The following medical subject headings and free-text terms will be used: "COVID-19 vaccines" AND "female" AND "vaccine hesitancy". Eligibility criteria are as follows: population (women of reproductive age); exposure (currently pregnant, lactational or trying to get pregnant); comparison (general women who are not in preconception, gestation or lactation) and outcome (the rate of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy). Article screening and data extraction will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, and any discrepancy will be resolved through discussion. We will use I2 statistics to assess heterogeneity and perform a meta-analysis when sufficiently homogeneous studies are provided. We will explore the potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup and meta-regression analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will use published data, so ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated by publication in peer-reviewed journal(s). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257511.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Lactation , Research Design , Pandemics , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
20.
J Health Care Poor Underserved ; 33(4): 2007-2031, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109267

ABSTRACT

While vaccine hesitancy has been described for the general population, vaccine hesitancy among the chronically ill has not been well explored. This study assesses COVID­19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among individuals with chronic illness using nationwide survey data. We analyzed vaccine hesitancy prior to and after approval of the vaccines using multinomial logistic regression and binomial logistic regression, respectively. In the first survey, 39% reported they were unlikely or unsure about receiving the vaccine. In adjusted analyses, female sex, Black race, anti­vaccination attitudes, media mistrust, and not following the media were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Despite this hesitance, in the follow­up survey, 89% reported vaccine receipt, with those more fearful of COVID­19, with more trust in the media, and closely following the development of the vaccine were most likely to move from hesitance to acceptance. Vaccine hesitancy is a mutable characteristic, underscoring the need for high-quality public health messaging.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Female , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Vaccination Hesitancy , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Parents , Chronic Disease
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL