RESUMO
Vaccination is a critical tool for controlling infectious diseases, with its use to protect against COVID-19 being a prime example. Where a disease is highly transmissible, even a small proportion of unvaccinated individuals can have substantial implications for disease burdens and compromise efforts for control. As socio-demographic factors such as deprivation and ethnicity have been shown to influence uptake rates, identifying how vaccine uptake varies with socio-demographic indicators is a critical step for reducing vaccine hesitancy and issues of access, and identifying plausible future uptake patterns. Here, we analyse the numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations subdivided by age, gender, date, dose and geographical location. We use publicly available socio-demographic data, and use random forest models to capture patterns of uptake at high spatial resolution, with systematic variation restricted to fine spatial scale (~ 1km in urban areas). We show that uptake of first vaccine booster doses in Scotland can be used to predict with high precision the distribution of second booster doses across deprivation deciles, age and gender despite the substantially lower uptake of second boosters compared to first. This analysis shows that while age and gender have the greatest impact on the model fit, there is a substantial influence of several deprivation factors and the proportion of BAME residents. The high correlation amongst these factors also suggests that, should vaccine uptake decrease, the impact of deprivation is likely to increase, furthering the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on individuals living in highly deprived areas. As our analysis is based solely on publicly available socio-demographic data and readily recorded vaccination uptake figures, it would be easily adaptable to analysing vaccination uptake data from countries where data recording is similar, and for aiding vaccination campaigns against other infectious diseases.
RESUMO
BackgroundDebate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. MethodsQualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n=50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. FindingsSix themes were identified in participants narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create vaccine apartheid; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
RESUMO
BackgroundHesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination threatens comprehensive vaccination. It is important to examine vaccination acceptance when people are making real rather than hypothetical decisions, to identify whether targeted support is needed, and to identify implications for communications. MethodsCross-sectional online and telephone survey with probability-based sample (n=4,978) of British adults, conducted January-February 2021. Measures: socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, financial status), COVID-19 status, vaccine acceptance, trust in COVID-19 vaccination information sources, perceptions of vaccination priority groups, and perceptions of importance of second dose. FindingsAmong 5,931 individuals invited, survey response rate was 84%. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (83%) was associated with increasing age, higher level of education and having been invited for vaccination. Acceptance decreased with unconfirmed past COVID-19, greater financial hardship, and non-White British ethnicity; Black/Black British participants had lowest acceptance. Overall, healthcare and scientific sources of information were most trusted. Compared with White British participants, other ethnicities had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with lower educational attainment or financial hardship had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with no qualifications had higher trust in media and family/friends. While trust was low overall in community or faith leaders it was higher among those with Asian/Asian British and Black/Black British ethnicity compared with White British participants. Views of vaccine prioritisation were mostly consistent with UK official policy but there was support for prioritising additional groups. There was high support for having the second vaccine dose. ConclusionsTargeted engagement is needed to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-White British ethnic groups, in younger adults, and among those with lower education, greater financial hardship and unconfirmed past infection. Healthcare professionals and scientific advisors should play a central role in communications and tailored messaging is needed for hesitant groups. Careful communication around vaccination prioritisation continues to be required.
