Trusted messengers and trusted messages: The role for community-based organizations in promoting COVID-19 and routine immunizations.

We sought to explore the trust and influence community-based organizations have within the communities they serve to inform public health strategies in tailoring vaccine and other health messages. A qualitative study was conducted between March 15 - April 12, 2021 of key informants in community-based organizations serving communities in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These organizations serve communities with high Social Vulnerability Index scores. We explored four key questions including: (1) What was and continues to be the impact of COVID-19 on communities; (2) How have trust and influence been cultivated in the community; (3) Who are trusted sources of information and health messengers; and (4) What are the community's perceptions about vaccines, vaccinations, and intent to vaccinate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen key informants from nine community-based organizations who serve vulnerable populations (e.g., mental health, homeless, substance use, medically complex, food insecurity) were interviewed. Five key findings include: (1) The pandemic has exacerbated disparities in existing social determinants of health for individuals and families and have created new concerns for these communities; (2) components of how to build the trust and influence (e.g., demonstrate empathy, create a safe space, deliver on results)resonated with key informants; (3) regardless of the source, presenting health information in a respectful and understandable manner is key to effective delivery; (4) trust and influence can be transferred by association to a secondary messenger connected to or introduced by the primary trusted source; and (5) increased awareness about vaccines and vaccinations offers opportunities to think differently, changing previously held beliefs or attitudes, as many individuals are now more cognizant of risks associated with vaccine-preventable diseases and the importance of vaccines. Community-based organizations offer unique opportunities to address population-level health disparities as trusted vaccine messengers to deliver public health messages.

Persuading the "Movable Middle": Characteristics of effective messages to promote routine and COVID-19 vaccinations for adults and children - The impact of COVID-19 on beliefs and attitudes.

PURPOSE: We sought to 1) explore trusted sources for vaccine information, 2) describe persuasive characteristics of trusted messages promoting routine and COVID-19 vaccines for children and adults and 3) explore how the pandemic has impacted attitudes and beliefs about routine vaccinations. We conducted a mixed method cross-sectional study between May 3-June 14, 2021 including a survey and six focus groups among a sub-set of survey respondents. A total of 1,553 survey respondents (from which n = 33 participated in the focus groups) including adults without children under age nineteen years (n = 582) and parents with children under age nineteen years (n = 971). RESULTS: Primary care providers, family, and credible sources, characterized as known and well-established entities, were top sources of vaccine information. Neutrality, honesty, and having a trusted source to rely on in sorting through volumes of sometimes conflicting information were highly valued. Trustworthy qualities about sources included: 1) expertise, 2) fact-based, 3) unbiased, and 4) having an established process for sharing information. Because of the evolving nature of the pandemic, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine and sources of COVID-19 information differed from typical views about routine vaccines. Of 1,327 (85.4 %) survey respondents, 12.7 % and 9.4 % of adults and parents cited that the pandemic impacted their attitudes and beliefs. Among these respondents, 8 % of adults and 3 % of parents cited more favorable attitudes and beliefs about getting vaccinated with routine vaccines because of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Vaccine attitudes and beliefs which inform intent to vaccinate can change and differ among different vaccines. Messaging should be tailored to resonate with parents and adults to improve vaccine uptake.

Phase 1 study of CART-ddBCMA for the treatment of subjects with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is a plasma cell neoplasm defined by progressively refractory disease necessitating chronic and increasingly intensive therapy. Despite recent advances, limited treatment options exist for RRMM. This single-arm, open label phase 1 study aimed to evaluate the safety of novel B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T construct that leverages a completely synthetic antigen-binding domain (CART-ddBCMA), which was specifically engineered to reduce immunogenicity and improve CAR cell surface stability. Thirteen patients ≥18 years with RRMM who received at least 3 prior regimens of systemic therapy were enrolled in the study. Patients received a single dose of 100 × 106 CART-ddBCMA (DL1) or 300 × 106 CART-ddBCMA (DL2) following standard lymphodepleting chemotherapy. The primary endpoints of the study were to evaluate the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events, including dose-limiting toxicities, and establish a recommended phase 2 dose. Results showed that CART-ddBCMA was well tolerated and demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile. Only 1 case of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 case of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity were reported; both were at DL2 and were manageable with standard treatment. No atypical neurological toxicities and Parkinson disease-like movement disorders were observed. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. All infused patients responded to CART-ddBCMA, and 9/12 (75%) patients achieved complete response/stringent complete response. Responses deepened over time, and at the time of last data-cut (median follow-up 56 weeks), 8/9 (89%) evaluable patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. In conclusion, the findings demonstrate the safety of CART-ddBCMA cells and document durable responses to CART-ddBCMA in patients with RRMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04155749.

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Outcomes with Parental Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Hesitancy Status, 2021-2022.

Despite the availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine acceptance has been low, particularly among parents. More information is needed on parental decision-making. We conducted a prospective cohort study from October 2021 to March 2022 among 334 parents in a large urban/suburban pediatric primary care network and linked longitudinal survey responses about attitudes and beliefs on vaccination, social norms, and access to vaccination services for COVID-19 to electronic health-record-derived vaccination outcomes for their eldest age-eligible children in June 2022. The odds of accepting two doses of COVID-19 vaccine for their child was higher in respondents who indicated the COVID-19 vaccine would be very safe (aOR [CI]: 2.69 [1.47−4.99], p = 0.001), as well as those who previously vaccinated their child against influenza (aOR [CI]: 4.07 [2.08−8.12], p < 0.001). The odds of vaccinating their child were lower for respondents who attended suburban vs. urban practices (aOR [CI]: 0.38 [0.21−0.67], p = 0.001). Parents in the cohort were active users of social media; the majority (78%) used their phone to check social media platforms at least once per day. Our findings suggest that healthcare providers and policymakers can focus on improving vaccination coverage among children living in suburban neighborhoods through targeted mobile-based messaging emphasizing safety to their parents.

Trends in Vaccine Refusal and Acceptance Using Electronic Health Records from a Large Pediatric Hospital Network, 2013-2020: Strategies for Change.

Understanding trends in vaccine refusal is critical to monitor as small declines in vaccination coverage can lead to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Using electronic heath record (EHR) data from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's 31 outpatient primary care sites, we created a cohort of 403,448 children less than age 20 years who received at least one visit from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2020. The sample represented 1,449,061 annualized patient and 181,131 annualized preventive vaccination visits per year. We characterized trends in vaccine refusal and acceptance using a repeated cross-sectional observational analysis of electronic health records (EHR) data using a single annual merged observation measure for patients seen multiple times for preventive healthcare within a calendar year. Refusals were identified for 212,900 annualized patient-visit year observations, which represented 14.6% of annualized patient-visit year observations and 25.1% of annualized vaccine patient-year observations. The odds of having a refusal marker were significantly increased in patients seen in suburban practices (aOR [CI]: 2.35 [2.30−2.40, p < 0.001]), in patients with increased age 11−17 years (aOR [CI]: 3.85 [3.79−3.91], p < 0.001), and those eligible for the VFC program (aOR [CI]: 1.10 [1.08−1.11]. Parental refusal (61.0%) and provider decisions (32.0%) were the most common documented in progress notes for not administering vaccines, whereas contraindications (2.5%) and supply issues (1.8%) were the least common. When offered, vaccine acceptance increased for human papillomavirus, hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella-containing and varicella-containing vaccines and decreased for hepatitis A and meningococcal vaccines. Repeated offering of vaccines was central to increasing acceptance, in part due to increased opportunities to address specific concerns.

Factors Influencing Parental and Individual COVID-19 Vaccine Decision Making in a Pediatric Network.

Aspects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed from routine vaccines, including emergency use authorizations, the prioritization of access, and the politicization of messaging. Subsequently, many parents reported lower vaccine confidence relative to routine vaccines, and vaccination coverage stalled below targets. This study aimed to understand parental vaccine decision making and compare COVID-19 versus routine vaccine decision making. We conducted nine virtual focus groups between 25 February 2022-11 March 2022 with parents (n = 41) of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's patients, recruited via email and stratified by vaccine hesitancy status (non-hesitant vs. hesitant). Transcripts were analyzed using the vaccine hesitancy matrix domains. Of 41 total participants, 25 (61.0%) were non-hesitant, 16 (39.0%) were hesitant or their children were not up-to-date on adolescent vaccines, and most self-identified as female (95.1%) and White/Caucasian (61.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and many of their first children (n = 26, 63.4%) were vaccinated against influenza. Several themes emerged regarding decision making: individual influences, group influences, vaccine and vaccine program influences, and contextual influences. While some influences were similar for routine and COVID-19 vaccine decision making (e.g., needing evidence-based information), other factors were vaccine- or situation-specific. Building trust requires a multi-faceted concerted effort that involves addressing the complex vaccine decision-making process.

How ready was the US vaccination infrastructure and network of immunization information systems for COVID-19 vaccination campaigns: Recommendations to strengthen the routine vaccination program and prepare for the next pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic vaccination campaigns globally have been unlike any effort in history. In the United States, the success of these efforts, in part, has hinged on the timely capture and reporting of an unprecedented amount of data from a significantly greater number of administering providers than for routine vaccinations. The pandemic response has highlighted the need to explore the status and value of vaccination data as the critical glue that connects all aspects of the upstream US vaccine development and downstream vaccination delivery system. In this review, we examine immunization information systems and the role that data and staffing play in pandemic responses. We offer three strategic recommendations-regarding funding, expanded provider enrollment, and data reporting-informed by a literature review, a survey and focus group from a convenience sample of 22 immunization jurisdictions, and the vision for enhanced data flow to improve future pandemic responses and routine vaccination.

Trust, influence, and community: Why pharmacists and pharmacies are central for addressing vaccine hesitancy.

In 2019, the World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy, defined as the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate against preventable infectious diseases, as one of the top ten threats to global health. To address hesitancy, we must focus our attention on building vaccine confidence, trust in the vaccine itself, in providers who administer vaccines, and in the process that leads to vaccine licensure and the recommended vaccination schedule. Building vaccine confidence, particularly in communities that have higher levels of distrust of vaccines and low vaccination coverage rates, is a critical public health priority, particularly in the current climate as the United States and the global public health community grapple with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In this commentary, we focus on the central role that pharmacists play in promoting the health and wellness of the local communities in which they are embedded, how they are one of the most trusted sources for their communities when it comes to health information and care, and their unique position in making a profound contribution to building vaccine confidence. We propose to arm all health professionals with a tool, the ASPIRE framework, which serves as a series of actionable steps to facilitate conversations with communities. This framework is intended to assist pharmacists in communicating with community members who may have concerns about vaccines by sharing trustworthy health information about vaccines to increase vaccine adoption. We conclude that it is insufficient to merely relay accurate health information about vaccines to the public and expect dramatic increases to vaccination rates. Accurate health information needs to be conveyed by trusted sources. Open engagement and dialogue layered on top of fundamental facts and messages are central to building confidence. Pharmacists and other providers can use tools such as ASPIRE to guide their conversations with community members to increase vaccine adoption.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses in two academic hospitals in Philadelphia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at 2 large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: HCP were surveyed in November-December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (medical doctor, nurse practitioner or physician assistant, and registered nurse) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines. RESULTS: Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 medical doctors [MDs] and doctors of osteopathy [DOs], 582 nurse practitioners [NPs], 158 physician assistants [PAs], and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs and NPs and 13.1% of MDs and DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (odds ratio [OR], ∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR, ∼2). CONCLUSIONS: Although most clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race or ethnicity across all positions. These results highlight the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.

Vaccine Coverage Across the Life Course in Michigan During the COVID-19 Pandemic: January‒September 2020.

Objectives. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on immunization services across the life course. Methods. In this retrospective study, we used Michigan immunization registry data from 2018 through September 2020 to assess the number of vaccine doses administered, number of sites providing immunization services to the Vaccines for Children population, provider location types that administer adult vaccines, and vaccination coverage for children. Results. Of 12 004 384 individual vaccine doses assessed, 48.6%, 15.6%, and 35.8% were administered to children (aged 0-8 years), adolescents (aged 9-18 years), and adults (aged 19‒105 years), respectively. Doses administered overall decreased beginning in February 2020, with peak declines observed in April 2020 (63.3%). Overall decreases in adult doses were observed in all settings except obstetrics and gynecology provider offices and pharmacies. Local health departments reported a 66.4% decrease in doses reported. For children, the total number of sites administering pediatric vaccines decreased while childhood vaccination coverage decreased 4.4% overall and 5.8% in Medicaid-enrolled children. Conclusions. The critical challenge is to return to prepandemic levels of vaccine doses administered as well as to catch up individuals for vaccinations missed. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):2027-2035. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306474).

Shared clinical decision-making on vaccines: out of sight, out of mind.

Clinical decision support systems, which provide automated reminders in electronic health systems, are designed to provide physicians and other health professionals support in clinical decision-making. New clinical guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on a new category of recommendations referred to as "shared clinical decision-making" have left providers struggling to interpret how to best implement recommendations for adult vaccines. The issue at hand is how to ensure that a conversation between the patient and provider occurs. While traditional clinical decision support systems have driven immunization for years, these systems support a binary default opt-in process. The goal for shared decision-making is the discussion rather than the vaccination. The recommended provider-patient conversations need to be supported with both provider guidance as well as tools to ensure vaccines are not omitted from the conversations, particularly as future vaccine candidates progress through the vaccine development pipeline.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in 2 Large Academic Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Significant differences in hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity have been observed in several settings. Racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs), who face occupational and community exposure to COVID-19, have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To assess hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs across different racial/ethnic groups and assess factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study was conducted among HCWs from 2 large academic hospitals (ie, a children's hospital and an adult hospital) over a 3-week period in November and December 2020. Eligible participants were HCWs with and without direct patient contact. A 3-step hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between race/ethnicity and vaccine hesitancy controlling for demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, COVID-19 exposure risk, and being up to date with routine vaccinations. Data were analyzed from February through March 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as not planning on, being unsure about, or planning to delay vaccination, served as the outcome. RESULTS: Among 34 865 HCWs eligible for this study, 12 034 individuals (34.5%) completed the survey and 10 871 individuals (32.2%) completed the survey and reported their race/ethnicity. Among 10 866 of these HCWs with data on sex, 8362 individuals (76.9%) were women, and among 10 833 HCWs with age data, 5923 individuals (54.5%) were younger than age 40 years. (Percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics are among the number of respondents for each type of question.) There were 8388 White individuals (77.2%), 882 Black individuals (8.1%), 845 Asian individuals (7.8%), and 449 individuals with other or mixed race/ethnicity (4.1%), and there were 307 Hispanic or Latino individuals (2.8%). Vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black HCWs (732 individuals [83.0%]) and Hispanic or Latino HCWs (195 individuals [63.5%]) (P < .001). Among 5440 HCWs with vaccine hesitancy, reasons given for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (4737 individuals [87.1%]), newness of the vaccine (4306 individuals [79.2%]), and lack of vaccine knowledge (4091 individuals [75.2%]). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy was 4.98 (95% CI, 4.11-6.03) among Black HCWs, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.63-2.70) among Hispanic or Latino HCWs, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.21-1.82) among HCWs with other or mixed race/ethnicity, and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.26-1.71) among Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs (P < .001). The aOR was decreased among Black HCWs when adjusting for employment characteristics and COVID-19 exposure risk (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.96-6.00; P < .001) and being up to date with prior vaccines (aOR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.62-5.53; P < .001) but not among HCWs with other racial/ethnic backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that vaccine hesitancy before the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine was increased among Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs. These findings suggest that interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among HCWs are needed.

Harnessing electronic clinical data to report adult and prenatal immunization quality measures.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the use of health plan quality measures specified for electronic clinical data to monitor immunizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 2018 data submitted by health plans reporting 2 new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures assessing receipt of clinically recommended vaccines among pregnant women and adults. We analyzed the number of plans reporting a valid performance rate and electronic data source used. We consulted expert panels and reviewed coverage rates from other sources to understand the results. RESULTS: We received 136 data submissions across commercial, Medicaid and Medicare plans and 87 submissions across commercial and Medicaid plans for the adult and prenatal immunization measures, respectively. These submissions represent approximately 15% of possible submissions. Plans used claims, registries and electronic health records. Mean performance rates for adult immunizations were 21.2 (commercial), 14.0 (Medicaid) and 19.5% (Medicare). Mean rates for prenatal immunizations were 33.1 (commercial) and 16.7% (Medicaid). DISCUSSION: Results from the first year of reporting 2 electronic clinical data measures suggest health plans can feasibly report these measures and are seeking electronic data to supplement claims. Comparison of rates to other national results showed lower than expected rates for the adult immunization measure. However, prenatal immunization rates were on par with those from a national survey, suggesting this measure is closer to use for quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Quality measure reporting that encourages connection to electronic data sources is a step forward in performance monitoring and improvement. The use of electronic sources may advance health information exchange for patient care.

Equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Many vaccine rationing guidelines urge planners to recognize, and ideally reduce, inequities. In the United States, allocation frameworks are determined by each of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 64 jurisdictions (50 states, the District of Columbia, five cities and eight territories). In this study, we analyzed vaccine allocation plans published by 8 November 2020, tracking updates through to 30 March 2021. We evaluated whether jurisdictions adopted proposals to reduce inequity using disadvantage indices and related place-based measures. By 30 March 2021, 14 jurisdictions had prioritized specific zip codes in combination with metrics such as COVID-19 incidence, and 37 jurisdictions (including 34 states) had adopted disadvantage indices, compared to 19 jurisdictions in November 2020. Uptake of indices doubled from 7 to 14 among the jurisdictions with the largest shares of disadvantaged communities. Five applications were distinguished: (1) prioritizing disadvantaged groups through increased shares of vaccines or vaccination appointments; (2) defining priority groups or areas; (3) tailoring outreach and communication; (4) planning the location of dispensing sites; and (5) monitoring receipt. To ensure that equity features centrally in allocation plans, policymakers at the federal, state and local levels should universalize the uptake of disadvantage indices and related place-based measures.

Perspectives on the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine: A survey of employees in two large hospitals in Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel have been identified by the ACIP as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey in November-December 2020 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia to evaluate the intention of hospital employees to be vaccinated. METHODS: The survey was sent electronically to all employees (clinical and nonclinical staff) at a children's hospital and an adult hospital. The survey was voluntary and confidential. Questions focused on plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available, reasons why employees would/would not get vaccinated, when employees planned to be vaccinated, vaccine safety and efficacy features that would be acceptable, and past history of receipt of other vaccines by the employee and family. Responses were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression methods. RESULTS: A total of 12,034 hospital employees completed the survey (a 34.5% response rate). Overall, 63.7% of employees reported that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 26.3% were unsure, and 10.0% did not plan to be vaccinated. Over 80% of those unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated expressed concerns about vaccine side effects and the vaccines' newness. In multivariable logistic regression, persons planning to take a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be older, male, more educated, Asian or White, up-to-date on vaccinations, without direct patient contact, and tested for COVID-19 in the past. No significant difference in intention to be vaccinated was found between those with higher versus lower levels of exposure to COVID-19 patients or the number of previous exposures to patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of hospital employees are planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, many are unsure or not planning to do so. Further education of hospital employees about the safety, efficacy, and value of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines is critical to vaccine acceptance in this population.