The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccine Knowledge on Vaccine Hesitancy in Adolescents

Background: Few studies have assessed how mobile messenger apps affect COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We created a COVID-19 vaccine information chatbot in a popular messenger app in Japan to answer commonly asked questions. Methods: LINE is the most popular messenger app in Japan. Corowa-kun, a free chatbot, was created in LINE on February 6, 2021. Corowa-kun provides instant, automated answers to frequently asked COVID-19 vaccine questions. In addition, a cross-sectional survey assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was conducted via Corowa-kun during April 5 to 12, 2021. Results: A total of 59,676 persons used Corowa-kun during February to April 2021. Of them, 10,192 users (17%) participated in the survey. Median age was 55 years (range 16 to 97), and most were female (74%). Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 59% to 80% after using Corowa-kun (p < 0.01). Overall, 20% remained hesitant: 16% (1,675) were unsure, and 4% (364) did not intend to be vaccinated. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were: age 16 to 34 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.7, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 3.0-4.6, compared to age ≥ 65), female sex (OR = 2.4, Cl: 2.1-2.8), and history of another vaccine side-effect (OR = 2.5, Cl: 2.2-2.9). Being a physician (OR = 0.2, Cl: 0.1-0.4) and having received a flu vaccine the prior season (OR = 0.4, Cl: 0.3-0.4) were protective. Conclusions: Corowa-kun reduced vaccine hesitancy by providing COVID-19 vaccine information in a messenger app. Mobile messenger apps could be leveraged to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Introduction: Development and dissemination of novel COVID-19 vaccines represent an opportunity to end the COVID-19 pandemic by vaccinating an estimated 80% of the population. Objectives: This study examines perceptions, and demographic and clinical factors influencing the likelihood of adults with psoriasis receiving a novel COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: A cross sectional study conducted from October–November 2020 of 1405 adults with psoriatic disease with prior contact to a patient advocacy organization. The main outcome of interest was the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Chi-square tests and logistic regression examined the relationship between individual characteristics and likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Results: Most participants (65%) received a flu vaccination in the last 12 months and were (64.2%) likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 35.9% reported being unlikely receive a vaccine. Likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination was associated with receiving the flu vaccine, race, ethnicity, sex, BMI, age, income, severity of PsO and PsA. When controlling for ethnicity, race, male sex, overweight/obese status, age, biologic use, disease type, comorbidities linked with worse COVID-19 outcomes, PsA symptoms, and skin disease severity, individuals who received the flu vaccine and those with annual household income over $75,000 were most likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy among individuals with psoriatic disease is considerable. Dermatologists and rheumatologists can increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake by actively engaging their patients on this topic using guidance published by the National Psoriasis Foundation on the management of psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Increased acceptance and uptake of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is very essential in containing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is a threat to public health containment of infectious diseases. Aim: The main aim of this study was to review published articles regarding COVID-19 vaccine acceptability and hesitancy across all populations in Africa. Materials and methods: This was a narrative review. A comprehensive literature search was done using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and EMBASE using the keywords vaccine acceptability, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 vaccine, COVID-19 pandemic, H1N1 vaccine, swine flu, swine flu vaccine, Africa, and the Boolean word AND. The cited literature was published between March 2001 and June 2021. Results: The few studies were done in Africa so far are among healthcare workers and medical students. Acceptance of vaccination against COVID-19 in Africa ranged from 15.4% to 55.9%. This shows increased hesitancy to receive the COVID-19 vaccines in African countries. Many people were concerned about the potential adverse effects and ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines has contributed to the hesitancy reported from different studies. Moreover, sociodemographic characteristics were also predictors of the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusion: Low acceptability rates reported in Africa indicates increased hesitancy to vaccination against COVID-19. The low acceptance of vaccines in Africa can hinder the required 60-70% vaccinations to achieve herd immunity. Therefore, there is a need to develop strategies that will address hesitancy against the COVID-19 vaccines across countries and populations in Africa and the entire globe.

Objective Availability of safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 is critical for controlling the pandemic, but herd immunity can only be achieved with high vaccination coverage. The present research examined psychological factors associated with intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination and whether reluctance towards novel pandemic vaccines are similar to vaccine hesitancy captured by a hypothetical measure used in previous research. Method Study 1 was administered to undergraduate students when COVID-19 was spreading exponentially (February-April 2020). Study 2 was conducted with online panel workers toward the end of the first U.S. wave (July 2020) as a pre-registered replication and extension of Study 1. In both studies, participants (total N = 1,022) rated their willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccination and to vaccinate a hypothetical child for a fictitious disease, and then responded to various psychological measures. Results In both studies, vaccination intentions were positively associated with past flu vaccine uptake, self-reported vaccine knowledge, vaccine confidence, and sense of collective responsibility. Complacency (not perceiving disease as high-risk), anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, perceived vaccine danger, and mistrust in science/scientists were negative correlates of vaccination intentions. Constraints (psychological barriers), calculation (extensive information-searching), analytical thinking, perceived disease vulnerability, self-other overlap, and conservatism were weakly associated with vaccination intentions but not consistently across both studies or vaccine types. Additionally, similar factors were associated with both real and hypothetical vaccination intentions, suggesting that conclusions from pre-COVID vaccine hesitancy research mostly generalize to the current pandemic situation. Conclusion Encouraging flu vaccine uptake, enhancing confidence in a novel vaccine, and fostering a sense of collective responsibility are particularly important as they uniquely predict COVID-19 vaccination intentions. By including both actual pandemic-related hesitancy measures and hypothetical hesitancy measures from past research in the same study, this work provides key context for the generalizability of earlier non-pandemic research.

Despite research conducted worldwide, there is no treatment specifically targeting SARS-CoV-2 infection with efficacy proven by randomized controlled trials. A chance for a breakthrough is vaccinating most of the global population. Public opinion surveys on vaccine hesitancy prompted our team to investigate Polish healthcare workers’ (HCWs) attitudes towards the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccinations. In-person and online surveys of HCWs: doctors, nurses, medical students, and other allied health professionals (n = 419) were conducted between 14 September 2020 and 5 November 2020. In our study, 68.7% of respondents would like to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations would persuade 86.3% of hesitant and those who would refuse to be vaccinated. 3.1% of all respondents claimed that no argument would convince them to get vaccinated. 61.6% of respondents declared a willingness to receive an influenza vaccination, of which 83.3% were also inclined to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Although most respondents—62.5% (262/419) indicated they trusted in the influenza vaccine more, more respondents intended to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in the 2020/2021 season. The study is limited by its nonrandom sample of HCWs but provides a preliminary description of attitudes towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

This study aimed to assess the willingness to receive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza vaccines and vaccine uptake during the early stage of the national vaccination campaign in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among adult Saudis between 20 January and 20 March 2021. The questionnaire addressed vaccine hesitancy, perceived risk, willingness, and vaccine uptake. Approximately 39% of the participants expressed vaccine hesitancy, and 29.8% and 24% felt highly vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 and seasonal influenza, respectively. The majority (59.5%) were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, although only 31.7% were willing to receive the flu vaccine. Adjusted analysis showed that vaccine hesitancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27–0.43) and the perception of being at high risk (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.68–4.60) independently affected the intention to be vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy was similar among those who were willing to be vaccinated (29.8%) and those who had already been vaccinated (33.1%). The perceived risk was significantly higher among those who had been vaccinated (48.1%) than among those who were willing to be vaccinated but had not yet been vaccinated (29.1%). In conclusion, the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in Saudi Arabia is high. Saudis who received the vaccine had a similar level of vaccine hesitancy and a higher level of perceived risk.

It is critical to develop tailored strategies to increase acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine and decrease hesitancy. Hence, this study aims to assess and identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal. We used data from a community-based survey, “COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion”, which includes data regarding intention to take COVID-19 vaccines, health status, and risk perception in Portugal from September 2020 to January 2021. We used multinomial regression to identify factors associated with intention to delay or refuse to take COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal was high: 56% would wait and 9% refuse. Several factors were associated with both refusal and delay: being younger, loss of income during the pandemic, no intention of taking the flu vaccine, low confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and the health service response during the pandemic, worse perception of government measures, perception of the information provided as inconsistent and contradictory, and answering the questionnaire before the release of information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. It is crucial to build confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine as its perceived safety and efficacy were strongly associated with intention to take the vaccine. Governments and health authorities should improve communication and increase trust.

Abstract Background The US vaccination schedule includes DTaP, IPV, Hib and HepB doses in the first 6 months of life. A previous analysis found variability in the timing of HepB doses in infants receiving DTaP-IPV/Hib. We explored factors associated with co-administration of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB on the same day. Methods This was a retrospective study using the MarketScan® commercial claims and encounters database. Infants born from 1 July 2010 - 30 June 2016, continuously enrolled in an insurance plan for ≥ 13 months and receiving ≥ 3 DTaP-IPV/Hib doses were included. Infants were assessed for HepB claims relative to the first and third DTaP-IPV/Hib doses. Because a HepB birth dose was assumed, the first HepB claim from 29 - 169 days following birth was counted as Dose 2, and the second claim from 170 days - 12 months as Dose 3. Associations between demographic, provider, and insurance characteristics, receipt of other pediatric vaccines, and co-administration of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 165,553 infants who received a first DTaP-IPV/Hib dose, 60.7% received HepB Dose 2 on the same day. Among 162,217 infants who received a third DTaP-IPV/Hib dose, 45.1% received HepB Dose 3 on the same day. Infants in the Northeast were less likely (OR=0.38, 95%CI=0.36-0.39), while those in the West were more likely (OR=1.41, 95%CI=1.36-1.46) than infants in the South to receive the first dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB Dose 2 on the same day. Infants vaccinated by pediatricians (OR=0.54, 95%CI=0.53-0.55) were less likely to receive the first dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB Dose 2 on the same day compared to infants vaccinated by family physicians. Infants who received PCV on the same day as the first dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib were more likely to receive HepB Dose 2 (OR=6.96, 95%CI=6.30-7.70) that day. These factors were also associated with co-administration of the third dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB Dose 3. Conclusion Differences in co-administration of DTaP-IPV/Hib and HepB were associated with region of residence, provider type and co-administration of PCV. The reasons underlying these differences merit exploration. A hexavalent vaccine containing DTaP, IPV, Hib, and HepB could improve timeliness of HepB vaccination, while reducing the number of injections during infancy. Disclosures Tanaz Petigara, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ya-Ting Chen, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Zhiwen Liu, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc., (Employee) Michelle Goveia, MD, Merck & Co., Inc (Employee, Shareholder) David Johnson, MD, MPH, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee, Shareholder) Gary S. Marshall, MD, GlaxoSmithKline (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Honorarium for conference lecture)Seqirus (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.DesignNational cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.SettingOnline, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.ParticipantsA total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.InterventionData were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1–15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.ResultsAmong the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine’s efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine’s manufacturing country (28.6%).ConclusionsAwareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

Abstract In any research study, there is an underlying research process that should begin with a clear articulation of the study’s goal. The study’s goal drives this process; it determines many study features including the estimand of interest, the analytic approaches that can be used to estimate it, and which coefficients, if any, should be interpreted. “Misalignment” can occur in this process when analytic approaches and/or interpretations do not match the study’s goal; misalignment is potentially more likely to arise when study goals are ambiguously framed. This study documented misalignment in the observational epidemiologic literature and explored how the framing of study goals contributes to its occurrence. The following misalignments were examined: 1) use of an inappropriate variable selection approach for the goal (a “goal-methods” misalignment) and 2) interpretation of coefficients of variables for which causal considerations were not made (e.g., Table 2 Fallacy, a “goal-interpretation” misalignment). A random sample of 100 articles published 2014-2018 in the top 5 general epidemiology journals were reviewed. Most reviewed studies were causal, with either explicitly stated (13/103, 13%) or associationally-framed (71/103, 69%) aims. Full alignment of goal-methods-interpretations was infrequent (9/103, 9%), although clearly causal studies (5/13, 38%) were more often fully aligned than seemingly causal ones (3/71, 4%). Goal-methods misalignments were common (34/103, 33%), but most frequently, methods were insufficiently reported to draw conclusions (47/103, 46%). Goal-interpretations misalignments occurred in 31% (32/103) of studies and occurred less often when the methods were aligned (2/103, 2%) compared with when the methods were misaligned (13/103, 13%).