Explaining the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Women have been significantly more likely than men to express hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination and, to a lesser extent, to refuse vaccination altogether. This gender gap is puzzling because women have been more likely to perceive higher risks from COVID-19, to approve more restrictive measures to fight the pandemic and to be more compliant with such measures. METHODS: This article studies the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes using two nationally representative surveys of public opinion fielded in February 2021 and May 2021 in 27 European countries. The data are analyzed using generalized additive models and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The data analyses show that hypotheses about (i) pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding concerns, (ii) higher trust in Internet and social networks as sources of medical information, (iii) lower trust in health authorities and (iv) lower perceived risks of getting infected with COVID-19 cannot account for the gender gap in vaccine hesitancy. One explanation that receives support from the data is that women are more likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and ineffective and this leads them to perceive the net benefits of vaccination as lower than the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: The gender gap in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy results to a large extent from women perceiving higher risks than benefits of the vaccines. While accounting for this and other factors decreases the gap in vaccine hesitancy, it does not eliminate it completely, which suggests further research is needed.

What accounts for the variation in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Eastern, Southern and Western Europe?

In the wake of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in 2021, significant differences in vaccine skepticism emerged across Europe, with Eastern European countries in particular facing very high levels of vaccine hesitancy and refusal. This study investigates the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal, with a focus on these differences across Eastern, Southern and Western Europe. The statistical analyses are based on individual-level survey data comprising quota-based representative samples from 27 European countries from May 2021. The study finds that demographic variables have complex associations with vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The relationships with age and education are non-linear. Trust in different sources of health-related information has significant associations as well, with people who trust the Internet, social networks and 'people around' in particular being much more likely to express vaccine skepticism. Beliefs in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines have large predictive power. Importantly, this study shows that the associations of demographic, belief-related and other individual-level factors with vaccine hesitancy and refusal are context-specific. Yet, explanations of the differences in vaccine hesitancy across Eastern, Southern and Eastern Europe need to focus on why levels of trust and vaccine-relevant beliefs differ across regions, because the effects of these variables appear to be similar. It is the much higher prevalence of factors such as distrust of national governments and medical processionals as sources of relevant medical information in Eastern Europe that are relevant for explaining the higher levels of vaccine skepticism observed in that region.

Government capacity, societal trust or party preferences: what accounts for the variety of national policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe?

European states responded to the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 with a variety of public policy measures. In this article we ask what can account for this variation in policy responses, and we identify a number of factors related to institutions, general governance and specific health-sector related capacities, societal trust, government type, and party preferences as possible determinants. Using multivariate regression and survival analysis, we model the speed with which school closures and national lockdowns were imposed. The models suggest a number of significant and often counterintuitive relationships: more centralized countries with <italic>lower</italic> government effectiveness, freedom and societal trust, but with separate ministries of health and health ministers with medical background acted faster and more decisively. High perceived capacity might have provided false confidence to the governments, resulting in a delayed response to the early stages of the pandemic. Furthermore, more right-wing and authoritarian governments responded faster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of European Public Policy is the property of Routledge 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 abstract 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 abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)