A Discrete Choice Analysis Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions for Children and Adults.

Importance: COVID-19 vaccination rates in the US remain below optimal levels. Patient preferences for different attributes of vaccine products and the vaccination experience can be important in determining vaccine uptake decisions. Objective: To assess preferences for attributes of adult and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination among US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey of a national panel of 1040 US adults was conducted in May and June 2021. A discrete choice analysis was used to measure the relative value of each attribute in the decision to choose a COVID-19 vaccination option for adults or children. Six attributes were used to described hypothetical vaccination options: vaccine effectiveness, mild side effects, rare adverse events, number of doses, time required for vaccination, and regulatory approval. Respondents chose between hypothetical vaccination profiles or no vaccination. Additional survey questions asked about vaccination beliefs, COVID-19 illness experience, COVID-19 risk factors, vaccination status, and opinions about the risk of COVID-19. Exposures: Respondents chose which vaccine profile they would prefer to receive for themselves (or no vaccination). Respondents then considered an identical set of profiles for a hypothetical child aged 0 to 17 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative value of vaccination-related attributes were estimated using Bayesian logit regression. Preference profiles for subgroups were estimated using latent class analyses. Results: A total of 1040 adults (610 [59%] female; 379 participants [36%] with an age of 55 years and older years) responded to the survey. When asked about vaccination choices for themselves, participants indicated that vaccine effectiveness (95% vs 60%) was a significant attribute (ß, 9.59 [95% CrI, 9.20-10.00] vs ß, 0.41 [95% CrI, 0-0.80]). Respondents also preferred fewer rare adverse events (ß, 6.35 [95% CrI, 5.74-6.86), fewer mild side effects (ß, 5.49; 95% CrI, 5.12-5.87), 1 dose (ß, 5.41; 95% CrI, 5.04-5.78), FDA approval (ß, 6.01; 95% CrI, 5.64-6.41), and shorter waiting times (ß, 5.67; 95% CrI, 4.87-6.48). Results were very similar when framing the question as adult or child vaccination, with slightly stronger preference for fewer rare adverse events for children. Latent class analysis revealed 4 groups of respondents: (1) individuals sensitive to safety and regulatory status, (2) individuals sensitive to convenience, (3) individuals who carefully considered all attributes in making their choices, and (4) individuals who rejected the vaccine. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, the identification of 4 distinct preference groups provides new information to guide communications to support vaccine decision making. In particular, the group that prioritize convenience (less time required for vaccination and fewer doses) may present an opportunity to create actionable strategies to increase vaccination uptake for both adult and pediatric populations.

Families' healthcare experiences for children with inherited metabolic diseases: protocol for a mixed methods cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Children with inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) often have complex and intensive healthcare needs and their families face challenges in receiving high-quality, family centred health services. Improvement in care requires complex interventions involving multiple components and stakeholders, customised to specific care contexts. This study aims to comprehensively understand the healthcare experiences of children with IMDs and their families across Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-stage explanatory sequential mixed methods design will be used. Stage 1: quantitative data on healthcare networks and encounter experiences will be collected from 100 parent/guardians through a care map, 2 baseline questionnaires and 17 weekly diaries over 5-7 months. Care networks will be analysed using social network analysis. Relationships between demographic or clinical variables and ratings of healthcare experiences across a range of family centred care dimensions will be analysed using generalised linear regression. Other quantitative data related to family experiences and healthcare experiences will be summarised descriptively. Ongoing analysis of quantitative data and purposive, maximum variation sampling will inform sample selection for stage 2: a subset of stage 1 participants will participate in one-on-one videoconference interviews to elaborate on the quantitative data regarding care networks and healthcare experiences. Interview data will be analysed thematically. Qualitative and quantitative data will be merged during analysis to arrive at an enhanced understanding of care experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data will be combined and presented narratively using a weaving approach (jointly on a theme-by-theme basis) and visually in a side-by-side joint display. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and procedures were approved by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's Research Ethics Board, the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board and the research ethics boards of each participating study centre. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States.

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

Factors Associated With School Attendance Plans and Support for COVID-19 Risk Mitigation Measures Among Parents and Guardians.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors are associated with plans for in-person school attendance during the 2020-2021 school year and with support for 15 school-based COVID-19 risk mitigation measures among parents and guardians. METHODS: In June 2020, we conducted an online survey of parents and guardians of public school children in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. In a child-level analysis, we used linear regression to assess which demographic factors, health-related concerns, and parent/guardian views were associated with plans for in-person school attendance. In a respondent-level analysis, we used linear regression to assess factors associated with the number of risk mitigation measures supported. RESULTS: Among 2202 children in the child-level analysis, in-person school attendance was planned for 71.0%. Such plans were less likely among children of Black respondents (-14.1 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -25.7, -2.6) and Asian respondents (-16.8, 95% CI: -31.3, -2.2), and among children with perceived high-risk health conditions (-9.7, 95% CI: -15.8, -3.6). Among 1,126 respondents in the respondent-level analysis, the mean number of measures supported was 8.0 (SD 4.4). Several factors were associated with support, but the magnitude of associations was generally modest. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, families of children with health conditions or who are of Black or Asian race/ethnicity may be less likely to opt for in-person learning. For these families, addressing barriers to remote education is critical. As schools plan for the 2020-2021 school year and beyond, they should respond to the desire among parents and guardians to implement substantial numbers of risk mitigation measures.