COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, values, intentions: US parents for their children, September 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To compare vaccine-related attitudes and values of parents of children 2-17 years old to other adults, examine intentions to vaccinate their children, and identify factors associated with intending to vaccinate children. METHODS: A nationally representative survey was conducted in September 2021 (just before the EUA for children 5-11 years old) using Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based web panel. The survey measured COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities among US adults. Scale response options to survey items were dichotomized, and cross-tabulations and logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Parents had lower odds of reporting being vaccinated against COVID-19 than other adults even after adjusting for associated sociodemographic characteristics such as age (aOR: 0.66; 95 %CI: 0.50-0.87). The most prevalent parental concerns about COVID-19 vaccines included the speed of their development (88 %), potential side effects (78 %), suspicion of government (77 %), and suspicion of pharmaceutical companies (72 %). Fewer than half (42 %) of parents intended to vaccinate their children 5-11 years old, while 38 % were uncertain and 20 % were unlikely to ever vaccinate their children. Vaccinated parents had higher odds than unvaccinated parents of intending to vaccinate their children (OR: 675.51; 95 %CI: 106.46-4286.12). Discussions with healthcare providers who encouraged COVID-19 vaccination were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children (OR: 11.29; 95 %CI: 2.60-49.02). CONCLUSIONS: We found parental vaccination and conversations with providers were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children. Decisions about childhood vaccination need to be supported by healthcare providers and a public health system that makes vaccine access and related information equitable and accessible. Vaccination-related decision making should be guided by healthcare providers and provide information about safety and risk to children.

The Crosscurrents Dialogue Model: 2019-2023.

The failure to consult with the public in policymaking can result in less sound and supportable policies. The Crosscurrents Dialogue Model (CDM) was developed to explore if Americans with different political perspectives could have useful policy conversations. To date, the CDM participants have addressed 10 separate topics such as health care and immigration and reached agreements each time. CDM provides evidence that the divide between politically diverse Americans can be bridged adequately to agree on specific recommendations for action. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(10):1099-1101. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307359).

Factors Affecting SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intent and Decision Making Among African American, Native American, and Hispanic Participants in a Qualitative Study.

Limited studies are available on how decisions and perceptions on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have changed since the start of vaccination availability. We performed a qualitative study to identify factors critical to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decision making and how perspectives evolved among African American/Black, Native American, and Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and social and economic disadvantage. We conducted 16 virtual meetings, with 232 participants in wave 1 meetings (December 2020) and with 206 returning participants in wave 2 meetings (January and February 2021). Wave 1 vaccine concerns in all communities included information needs, vaccine safety, and speed of vaccine development. Lack of trust in government and the pharmaceutical industry was influential, particularly among African American/Black and Native American participants. Participants showed more willingness to get vaccinated at wave 2 than at wave 1, indicating that many of their information needs had been addressed. Hesitancy remained greater among African American/Black and Native American participants than among Hispanic participants. Participants in all groups indicated that conversations tailored to their community and with those most trustworthy to them would be helpful. To overcome vaccine hesitancy, we propose a model of fully considered SARS-CoV-2 vaccine decision making, whereby public health departments supply information, align with community values and recognize lived experiences, offer support for decision making, and make vaccination easy and convenient.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status, Attitudes, and Values among US Adults in September 2021.

Background: The Delta COVID-19 variant caused a resurgence in cases and deaths during the summer of 2021, particularly among the unvaccinated, highlighting the need to increase vaccine coverage. We describe a survey conducted in September 2021, in the midst of the Delta variant surge, after the FDA fully approved Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine for ages 16+ and issued an emergency use authorization for ages 12−15. Methods and Findings: US adults were surveyed to measure COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities. More than three-quarters (77%) reported receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Of the unvaccinated, 6% intended to vaccinate, 40% were unlikely to ever vaccinate, and 55% remained uncertain. Most of the unvaccinated were <45 years old (62%), without a bachelor's degree (83%), earning less than $85,000 annually (74%), and Republican/Independent (66%). Concerns among the unvaccinated-yet-still-uncertain included the vaccines' safety (86%), speed of development (86%), and suspicion of government (79%) and pharmaceutical companies (69%). Most (86%) of the unvaccinated reported they would not vaccinate if mandated by their employer. About one third (34%) of the unvaccinated reported facing at least one barrier to vaccination. Conclusion: More than half of unvaccinated adults remained uncertain about COVID-19 vaccination, indicating an opportunity to support their decision making. Public health must increase easy and equitable access to vaccination and renew efforts to provide unvaccinated populations access to information from trusted sources.

Walking the Tightrope: Reevaluating science communication in the era of COVID-19 vaccines.

Scientists are trained to be skeptical and not overstate the existing evidence. This cautiousness is a valuable asset when working in scientific research, where the goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. It becomes a handicap when scientists are asked to communicate to the public about pressing topics such as COVID-19 vaccines. Often in such contexts, immediate recommendations are sought, and decisions must be made even when complete evidence is lacking. For scientists to be effective public communicators, they must adjust their mindset and embrace brevity, clarity, and other principles of effective communication. Focusing messages on what is known fosters public confidence in taking needed actions, whereas focusing on what is still unknown fosters inaction and seeds doubt. The implementation of principles of effective communication does not inherently conflict with maintaining scientific accuracy and acknowledging uncertainty, but it does require additional care, effort, and training.

COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, values and intentions among United States adults prior to emergency use authorization.

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide the best opportunity to control the pandemic. Having safe and efficacious vaccines available is only half the equation; people must also take them. We describe a study to identify COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, values and intentions immediately preceding authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in the US. METHODS: A national panel survey was conducted to measure intent to receive COVID-19 vaccines as well as disease and vaccine attitudes, values and trust in local, state and federal public health authorities. RESULTS: Greater than 80% of respondents reported confidence they could adhere to COVID recommendations such as mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The majority of respondents (70%) reported believing that current drugs were somewhat or very good at treating COVID-19 infection. Vaccine intent fell into three groups: Intenders (50%), Wait and Learn (40%), and Unlikelys (10%). Intent to get vaccinated was substantially lower among African American (32%), and higher among men (56%), those over 60 years of age (61%), those with a Bachelor's degree or higher (63%), and Democrats (63%). The Wait and Learn group, compared to the Intenders, were less likely to report being diagnosed with a high risk condition for COVID-19, receiving an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, discussing COVID-19 vaccine with their healthcare provider, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, considering a COVID-19 vaccine important to stop the spread of infection, and wering a mask usually or almost always. CONCLUSION: Only half of US adults intend to accept COVID-19 vaccines; most others (40%) are uncertain. Levels of immunity associated with community protection will not be achieved without reaching those who are currently uncertain. Characterizing COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions and ascertaining values and trust in local, state, and federal public health authorities that impact vaccine decision-making are essential.

Strengthening public health ethics at the centers for disease control and prevention.

In early 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) launched an initiative to strengthen leadership in public health ethics. This resulted in the formation of an external Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director, an internal CDC Public Health Ethics Committee, and the creation of a new position, the CDC Public Health Ethics Coordinator, to oversee the activities of these two committees and to serve as the main point of contact for public health ethics at the agency. Through this effort, the CDC is collaborating with the Ethics Subcommittee to develop ethical guidance documents that address specific public health program concerns, including pandemic influenza, emergency preparedness and response, and genomics. It is anticipated that as the public health ethics activities grow within the CDC, benefits will be seen in greater participation and partnership with affected stakeholders and strengthened public trust in health recommendations.

Getting the science right and doing the right science in vaccine safety.

Because of the potential for conflicts of interest, Salmon et al. propose in this issue the creation of an independent vaccine safety board to assume responsibility for assessing the safety of licensed vaccines.We believe that the current system at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) facilitates needed interactions between those involved in risk assessment and risk management, provides substantial safeguards against conflicts of interest, and results in sound decisions. The CDC, given its role in promoting immunization, may be perceived to have a greater potential conflict and plans to review its vaccine safety activities. Both agencies recognize the importance of transparency in considering vaccine safety and welcome the opportunity to work with the public and the medical community to improve the quality of scientific information and decisionmaking.

Elimination of measles and of disparities in measles childhood vaccine coverage among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States.

The gap in measles vaccine coverage between white and nonwhite children was as large as 18% in 1970. During the measles epidemic of 1989-1991, attack rates among nonwhite children <5 years of age were 4- to 7-fold higher than rates among white children. Because of the epidemic and of the known disparity in vaccine coverage and risk of disease, a dual strategy to eliminate measles in the United States was implemented: universal interventions likely to reach the majority of children and targeted interventions more likely to reach nonwhite children. In 1992, the gap in coverage between white and nonwhite children was reduced to 6% (from 15% in 1985); the risk of disease among nonwhite children was narrowed to