Reopening to the world: how safety, normality and trust in government shape young adults' COVID-19 vaccine intentions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, and particularly 2020-2021, young adults were often significant transmitters of the virus. Prior to the availability of vaccines for young adults, we sought to understand what would contribute to their uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine and how government policy might intervene. We undertook qualitative interviews between February and April 2021 with 19 participants (aged 18-29) in Perth, Western Australia. Despite Western Australians' lives changing little during the pandemic, almost all wanted to receive a vaccine. Motivating factors included protecting themselves and others and having life return to normal. Participants' significant levels of trust in the state government response to the pandemic did not extend to the Federal government. This research uncovers what influences young people to receive new vaccinations, how trust in governments develops, and how ideas of normality and safety influence vaccine demand.Alternate :在新冠疫情其间，尤其是2020-2021年，年轻人往往成为病毒的传播者。在新冠疫苗普及到年轻人之前，我们试图了解哪些因素会有利于他们接种新冠疫苗，以及政府应该如何进行干预。我们在2021年2月至4月间对西澳大利亚帕斯市的19位参与者做了定性访谈。虽然西澳大利亚人的生活在疫情其间变化甚小，但几乎所有人都希望接种疫苗。原因包括保护自己及他人、让生活回到常轨。参与者对州政府应对疫情的做法有显著的信任，但不延及联邦政府。本文揭示了哪些东西影响了年轻人接受新疫苗、对政府的信任如何形成、以及正常观与安全观如何影响对疫苗的需求。

'I'm provax': Pro-vaccination personal histories and socialities of older Australians in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccination scholarship often explores how social networks foster vaccine refusal and delay, revealing how social and institutional relations produce refusing or delaying parents and un- or under-vaccinated children. It is likewise critical to understand the development of pro-vaccination orientations by researching those who want to be vaccinated since such attitudes and associated practices underpin successful vaccination programmes. This article explores pro-vaccination sociality, personal histories and self-understandings during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. We draw upon 18 in-depth interviews with older Western Australians, documenting how they articulate 'provax' identities in opposition to those they depict as 'antivax' others. Provax identities were clearly anchored in and solidified through social relations and personal histories, as interviewees spoke of 'likeminded' friends and families who facilitated each other's vaccinations and referenced childhood experiences of epidemics and vaccinations. Access barriers relating to the vaccine programme drove interviewees to reimagine their provax status in light of not yet being vaccinated. Thus, interviewees' moral and ideological understandings of themselves and others were interrelated with supply-side constraints. We examine the development of self-proclaimed 'provaxxers' (in a context of limited access); how they imagine and enact boundaries between themselves and those they deem 'antivax'; and possibilities for public health research.

Mandating COVID‐19 vaccinations for children: Attitudes of Western Australian parents

Australian governments have used vaccine mandates to drive high uptake of routine childhood vaccines and adult Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and influenza vaccines. We sought to understand the attitudes of Western Australian parents regarding mandating COVID‐19 vaccines for children, interviewing 44 parents of children aged up to 18 years between May and December 2021. Transcripts were analysed to ascertain parents' attitudes and sources of reasoning. Over half of the parents supported COVID‐19 vaccine mandates for children, while the rest had opposing, nuanced or indifferent views. Participants invoked community and health‐related reasoning;policy and government‐related reasoning;and concerns based on practical implementation. There was a high degree of consistency in parents' attitudes toward COVID‐19 vaccines and whether they supported mandating them for children, although some who planned to delay vaccination nevertheless supported the idea of mandates. Some participants reported that a mandate would prompt them to vaccinate, but others were willing to accept the consequences of keeping their children unvaccinated, or said that a mandate would not affect them as they would vaccinate regardless. Understanding how parents think and feel about mandating COVID‐19 vaccines with educational exclusions or financial penalties is critical to inform policymakers, who may consider these strategies for future pandemic vaccines. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Australian Journal of Social Issues (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, 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.)

Stay-at-home, Safe at Home? A survey of parental home safety practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To slow the spread of COVID-19, many nonessential businesses, daycares, and schools closed, and areas imposed "stay-at-home" orders. Closures led to young children spending more time at home, traditionally, the place where more than one-half of unintentional pediatric injuries occur. The objective of the current study was to describe parental safety perceptions and confidence, safety device purchase and installation, and injury prevention practices and behaviors, in homes with children 6 years of age and younger, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with a convenience sample of US participants, 18 years or older, was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021. Parents of children (≤ 6 years) were recruited via social media ads and posts on Facebook and Twitter and invited to complete an anonymous, online survey about their home safety practices before and during the COVID-19 stay-at-home order. Upon completion, parents could participate in a prize drawing to receive one of five $100 gift cards. RESULTS: A total of 499 participants completed the survey. Most (47.9%) were 45-54 years of age and reported the amount of time at home increased for them (93.9%) and their children (90.6%) during the stay-at-home period. Thirty-seven percent (36.9%) of parents considered their homes safe but recognized room for improvement and felt confident in their ability to make their homes safe for their children (72.8%). From the time before until the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were in place, parents increased their home injury prevention practices (42.3%). Parents that had identified unsafe areas in the home before the stay-at-home order were significantly more likely to increase their safety behaviors, take childproofing actions, and purchase or install safety devices during the stay-at-home order (p < 0.0001). Parents with younger children (5 years) were significantly more likely than parents with older children to take childproofing actions (p < .0001) including purchasing and installing safety devices (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Spending more time at home during the COVID-19 pandemic may have helped the sampled parents, especially those with younger children, identify unsafe areas in their homes and encourage them to modify their behaviors, and purchase and install safety devices to help make their homes safer for their children.

Parents' COVID-19 vaccine intentions for children under 5 years: Brief reflections from a qualitative study.

AIM: Australian authorities made COVID-19 vaccines available for children aged under 5 years old with serious comorbidities in August 2022. There is presently no universal programme for young children, but crucial to any rollout's success is whether parents are motivated and able to vaccinate. By examining parents' vaccine intentions, this study aims to inform current and future COVID-19 vaccine roll-outs for children aged under 5 years. METHODS: As part of the mixed methods project 'Coronavax: Preparing Community and Government' we interviewed 18 Western Australian parents of young children about their intentions in late 2021. RESULTS: Two thirds intended to vaccinate if and when they could, with one third intending to delay for reasons including risk and safety perceptions, fears about side effects and influence from their social networks. However, even those choosing to delay were waiting rather than refusing. CONCLUSIONS: To improve uptake, targeted messaging should emphasise that COVID-19 can be a serious disease in young children, with such messaging drawing on the reputability and esteem of scientific and technical authorities. Such messaging should be oriented towards parents of children with serious comorbidities at the present time. It will be important to emphasise that government vaccine recommendations are based on supporting families to protect their children and keep them healthy.

COVID-19 vaccine Mandates: An Australian attitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The rollout of vaccines against COVID-19 is prompting governments and the private sector to adopt mandates. However, there has been little conceptual analysis of the types of mandates available, nor empirical analysis of how the public thinks about different mandates and why. Our conceptual study examines available instruments, how they have been implemented pre-COVID, and their use for COVID-19 globally. Then, our qualitative study reports the acceptability of such measures in Western Australia, which has experienced very limited community transmission, posing an interesting scenario for vaccine acceptance and acceptability of measures to enforce it. METHOD: Our conceptual study developed categories of mandates from extant work, news reports, and legislative interventions globally. Then, our empirical study asked 44 West Australians about their attitudes towards potential mandatory policies, with data analysed using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Our novel studies contribute richness and depth to emerging literature on the types and varying acceptability of vaccine requirements. Participants demonstrated tensions and confusion about whether instruments were incentives or punishments, and many supported strong consequences for non-vaccination even if they ostensibly opposed mandates. Those attached to restrictions for disease prevention were most popular. There were similar degrees of support for mandates imposed by employers or businesses, with participants showing little concern for potential issues of accountability linked to public health decisions delegated to the private sector. Participants mostly supported tightly regulated medical exemptions granted by specialists, with little interest in religious or personal belief exemptions. CONCLUSION: Our participants are used to being governed by vaccine mandates, and now by rigorous lockdown and travel restrictions that have ensured limited local COVID-19 disease and transmission. These factors appear influential in their general openness to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially when linked explicitly to the prevention of disease in high-risk settings.

Does a major change to a COVID-19 vaccine program alter vaccine intention? A qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: On 8th April 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) made the Pfizer-BioNtech (Comirnaty) vaccine the "preferred" vaccine for adults in Australia aged < 50 years due to a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca vaccination. We sought to understand whether this impacted COVID-19 vaccine intentions. METHOD: We undertook qualitative interviews from February - April 2021 before and after the program change with 28 adults in Perth, Western Australia. Using our COVID-19 vaccine intentions model, we assessed changes in participants' COVID-19 vaccine intention before and after the program change. Participants were classified as 1) 'acceptors': no concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, access and would accept whatever vaccine is offered, 2) 'cautious acceptors': some concerns and would prefer a particular vaccine brand but would accept whatever is offered, 3) 'Wait awhile': for more data, easier access, for another vaccine brand, a greater perceived COVID-19 threat or until mandatory, or 4) 'refuser': no intention to vaccinate due to concerns about safety and/or efficacy. RESULTS: Before the change, 7/18 of those aged < 50 years were 'acceptors,' 10/18 were 'cautious acceptors' and 1/18 was 'wait awhile.' Overall, 14/18 participants had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention after the change; 4/18 became more concerned. For those aged ≥ 50 years and before the change, 5/10 were 'acceptors' and 5/10 were 'cautious acceptors.' After the change, 8/10 still had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention; 2/10 became more cautious. The major concern before the program change was COVID-19 vaccines having different vaccine efficacy; the concern pivoted to safety. CONCLUSION: The majority of participants were 'cautious acceptors' who intended on being vaccinated; many had this intention before and after the program change. The Australian government, health care providers and media need to better address COVID-19 vaccine concerns to assist those with COVID-19 vaccine intentions receive a vaccine.

Coronavax: preparing community and government for COVID-19 vaccination: a research protocol for a mixed methods social research project.

INTRODUCTION: Ahead of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination programme, the interdisciplinary Coronavax research team developed a multicomponent mixed methods project to support successful roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine in Western Australia. This project seeks to analyse community attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine access and information needs. We also study how government incorporates research findings into the vaccination programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Coronavax protocol employs an analytical social media study, and a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with purposively selected community groups. Participant groups currently include healthcare workers, aged care workers, first responders, adults aged 65+ years, adults aged 30-64 years, young adults aged 18-29 years, education workers, parents/guardians of infants and young children (<5 years), parents/guardians of children aged 5-18 years with comorbidities and parents/guardians who are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines. The project also includes two studies that track how Australian state and Commonwealth (federal) governments use the study findings. These are functional dialogues (translation and discussion exercises that are recorded and analysed) and evidence mapping of networks within government (which track how study findings are used). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and the University of Western Australia HREC. Study findings will be disseminated by a series of journal articles, reports to funders and stakeholders, and invited and peer-reviewed presentations.