RESUMO
In January 2021, Australia initiated a national COVID-19 vaccine rollout strategy but faced setbacks, leading to negative press and media controversy, which may have diminished vaccine confidence. This study aimed to assess the factors influencing vaccine confidence in Australian adults (≥18 years of age) following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine. Conducted at Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, a cross-sectional survey with 1053 respondents gauged vaccine confidence and influencing factors. The results showed overall high confidence (mean score 33/40). Trusted sources included the Australian Department of Health (77.8%), NSW Health (76.7%), and general practitioners (53.7%), while social media was distrusted (5.9%). The motivations for vaccination varied: university-educated individuals prioritised personal health (X2 = 17.81; p < 0.001), while religious and/or older respondents (≥50 years of age) emphasised community (X2 = 11.69; p < 0.001) and family protection (X2 = 17.314; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed use of the Australian Department of Health website as a trusted source of COVID-19 information as the strongest predictor of high confidence (>30; OR 1.43; p = 0.041), while exposure to fake news decreased confidence (OR 0.71; p = 0.025). The study underscores the importance of reliable health information sources in bolstering vaccine confidence and highlights the detrimental effects of misinformation. Promoting awareness of trustworthy health channels is crucial to combat vaccine hesitancy in Australia.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) underreporting is highly prevalent across the world. This study aimed to identify factors associated with ADR reporting and map these to a behavioural change framework to help inform future interventions designed to improve ADR underreporting. METHODS: A mixed methods survey was distributed to healthcare professionals at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative data was analysed using logistic regression to identify factors that predict ADR reporting. Qualitative data was evaluated using content analysis. These were then integrated and mapped to the 14 domains within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify target areas relevant for improving ADR reporting. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three healthcare professionals completed the survey. Knowing how to report ADRs (OR 4.56, 95%CI 1.95-10.7), having been trained on ADR reporting (OR 2.72, 95%CI 1.29-5.77), and encountering ADRs as part of clinical practice (OR 10.3, 95%CI 3.59-29.4) were significant predictors of reporting an ADR. Content analysis identified three categories: modifying the ADR reporting process, enabling clinicians to report ADRs, and creating a positive ADR reporting culture. After data integration, the three target TDF domains were knowledge, environmental context/resources, and beliefs about consequences. CONCLUSION: Future interventions designed to improve ADR reporting should address these target domains to instigate behaviour change in healthcare professionals' reporting of ADRs.
