Assessment of the Cultural Nuances in COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Through a Comparative Analysis of English and Spanish Facebook Posts in Tarrant County, Texas: Longitudinal Study.

Explaining higher Covid-19 vaccination among some US primary care professionals

Lessons Relearned? H1N1, COVID-19, and Vaccination Planning.

Background: In Salatiga City, COVID-19 immunization still needs to meet the 70% vaccination target needed to generate herd immunity. Vaccine skepticism and injection phobia can be barriers. A study of community barriers to COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine uptake is needed. Purpose: This study aimed to analyze barriers affecting the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in Salatiga City. Methods: The study collected data from 323 Salatiga City people. Fear of pain, doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine, perception of fear of AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunization), perception of accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccine, and the perception of information about the COVID-19 vaccine were independent variables in this study. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination is dependent. Data analysis using Chi-Square with 0.05 significance. Results: The results of this study found a relationship between fear of pain (p-value = 0.00), doubt about the COVID-19 vaccine (p-value = 0.00), perception of fear of AEFI (p-value = 0.00), perception of accessibility of COVID-19 vaccine (p-value = 0.00), and perception of information about COVID-19 vaccine (p-value = 0.00) and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine by Salatiga City residents. Conclusion: Perceived COVID-19 vaccination barriers affected vaccine acceptance. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in Salatiga City is related to fear of pain, doubt about the COVID-19 vaccine, perception of fear of AEFI, perception of accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccine, and perception of information about the COVID-19 vaccine. Salatiga City's COVID-19 education efforts should focus on vaccine safety and side effects in collaboration with health cadres and cross-sector collaboration.

Even with the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and uptake among nurses are unknown. This study evaluated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake of nursing staff during one of the first COVID-19 vaccine rollouts in the United States. A cross-sectional survey was conducted during February 2021 among nursing staff working in a large medical center in central United States. There were 276 respondents; 81.9% of participants were willing to receive the vaccine during the initial rollout, 11.2% were hesitant, and only 5.1% were unwilling. The hesitant group was likely to report having inadequate information to make an informed decision about whether to receive the vaccine (45.2%) and about vaccine expectations (32.3%). The majority (83.3%) received at least one dose of the vaccine. Having greater than 10 years’ work experience (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.16–7.9) and confidence in vaccine safety (OR 7.78, 95% CI 4.49–13.5) were significantly associated with vaccine uptake. While our study indicates higher vaccine uptake among nursing staff during an active vaccine rollout, there remains sustained hesitancy and unwillingness to uptake. For those hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, public health efforts to provide more data on side effects and efficacy may help increase vaccine uptake.

Rethinking vaccine hesitancy among minority groups

Hesitancy remains one of the major hurdles to vaccination, regardless of the fact that vaccines are indisputable preventive measures against many infectious diseases. Nevertheless, vaccine hesitancy or refusal is a growing phenomenon in the general population as well as among healthcare workers (HCWs). Many different factors can contribute to hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination in the HCWs population, including socio-demographic characteristics (female gender, low socio-economical status, lower age), individual beliefs regarding vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as other factors (occupation, knowledge about COVID-19, etc.). Understanding the determinants of accepting or refusing the COVID-19 vaccination is crucial to plan specific interventions in order to increase the rate of vaccine coverage among health care workers. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey on HCWs in seventeen Italian regions, between 30 June and 4 July 2021, in order to collect information about potential factors related to vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. We found an overall vaccine uptake rate of 96.4% in our sample. Acceptance was significantly related to job task, with physicians showing the highest rate of uptake compared to other occupations. At univariate analysis, the HCWs population's vaccine hesitancy was significantly positively associated with fear of vaccination side effects (p < 0.01), and negatively related to confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (p < 0.01). Through multivariate analysis, we found that only the fear of possible vaccination side effects (OR: 4.631, p < 0.01) and the confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness (OR: 0.35 p < 0.05) remained significantly associated with hesitancy. Action to improve operator confidence in the efficacy and safety of the vaccine should improve the acceptance rate among operators.

Vaccination as a fundamental pillar of promoting public health and interest is critical to limiting the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many citizens are still hesitant about this epidemic prevention measure. This article aimed to understand the COVID-19 vaccination and hesitancy rates among Guangzhou residents at different points in time as well as to explore the relevant factors that cause vaccination hesitancy. We conducted a total of nine cross-sectional surveys by enrolling 12,977 questionnaires among Guangzhou residents through the online survey software called "WenJuanXing" between April 2021 and December 2022, and residents made their choices by judging their willingness to vaccinate. These surveys collected data on the participants' sociodemographic characteristics, vaccination status, vaccine hesitancy, and factors influencing this hesitancy. The Chi-squared test was used for univariate analysis and the multivariate logistic regression model was used to further adjust the influence of the confounding factors to evaluate the main factors affecting the hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccine at different periods. Over the course of 2021-2022, a total of 12,977 residents in the study area were surveyed. The vaccine hesitancy rates fluctuated over time. From April to June 2021, the vaccine hesitancy rate decreased from 30% to 9.1% and then increased to 13.7% in November. However, from April to December 2022, the hesitancy rate continued to rise from 13.4% to 30.4%. Vaccination rates, the epidemic waves of COVID-19, and changes in policies may all be possible factors that contributed to these fluctuations in vaccine hesitancy rates. We found statistically significant correlations between factors, such as residence, education, and occupation, and vaccine hesitancy at certain points of time. The results of the surveys in April and June 2021 showed that rural residents showed higher vaccine hesitancy rate than urban residents. Their lower education level was associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. Workers and farmers are more likely to have vaccine hesitancy than people with other occupations. The univariate analysis showed that people with underlying medical conditions and lower perceived health status were more likely to experience vaccine hesitation. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the health status of individuals is the most important factor leading to vaccine hesitancy, and residents' underestimation of domestic risks and overconfidence in personal protection measures were also contributing factors. At different stages, vaccine hesitancy among residents was related to vaccine side effects, safety and efficacy, convenience fluctuation, and various factors. In the present study, we found that vaccine hesitancy did not display a consistent downward trend but it fluctuated over time. Higher education, residing in urban areas, lower perceived disease risk, and concerns about the vaccine's safety and side effects were risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. Implementing appropriate interventions and educational programs tailored to address these risk factors may prove to be effective in enhancing public confidence on vaccination.

People with cancer are at higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 infection. We investigated COVID-19 vaccine uptake among patients with solid organ and blood cancers and explored factors related to hesitancy. Cross-sectional online survey of adults with a history of cancer at three health services across metropolitan and regional Victoria. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by the validated Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. There were 1073 respondents: 56% female; median age 62 years (range 23 - 91). Commonest tumor types included breast 29%, gastrointestinal 19%, hematological 15%, genitourinary 15%, and lung 8%. Thirty-six percent had metastatic disease, and 54% were receiving active anticancer treatment. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated positive intent toward COVID-19 vaccination, 10% were undecided, and 6% indicated negative attitudes. At least one vaccine dose had been received by 65% of respondents, leaving 35% unvaccinated. Fifty-eight percent of unvaccinated patients answered that they would "definitely" or "probably" take a vaccine. Higher vaccine uptake was significantly associated with older age, male gender, English as first language, longer time since cancer diagnosis, and not being on current anticancer treatment. Concerns regarding vaccine side effects, particularly thrombosis, and the desire for clear medical advice were prominent among unvaccinated respondents. Despite being eligible for COVID-19 vaccination since March 2021, a substantial minority of patients with cancer remained unvaccinated as of August 2021. Targeted communication and educational resources addressing vaccine safety in the context of cancer are key to promoting vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population.

Introduction: COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The types of COVID-19 vaccines have been distinguished, ie vector viral vaccines, mRNA, subunit vaccines. These include traditional approaches - inactivated, live-attenuated and protein / adjuvant-based, as well as novel, as yet unlicensed - viral vectors and nucleic acids. There are scientific publications showing the safety and possible side effects of vaccines from various companies. Purpose of the work : Analysis of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines on the basis of scientific publications published on the PubMed scientific platform. Publications have been published in the last 12 months. The safety and adverse effects of vaccines were assessed in the course of clinical trials. Results: Among the main side effects so far were mild / moderate pain at the injection site, redness, hives and rash. Allergic reactions to vaccines are - apart from pronounced local reactions (> 10 cm) at the injection site - very rare and are usually caused by the vaccine's allergy to the components of the vaccine. In addition, there may be swelling or tenderness of the lymph nodes in the armpit, headache, pain in the muscles and joints, nausea and vomiting. Conclusions: Regardless of the concern, these vaccines are characterized by similar mild, systemic side effects, which indicates the similarity in the safety of these vaccines. Severe adverse reactions occur in extreme cases. More patients only experienced side effects after the second dose. Keywords: vaccines; coronavirus; COVID-19; safety of COVID-19 vaccines; side effects

BackgroundLittle is known about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in Africa. We sought to understand Malawian healthcare workers’ (HCWs’) COVID-19 vaccination and its hypothesized determinants.MethodsIn March 2021, as the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out commenced in Malawi, we surveyed clinical and lay cadre HCWs (n=400) about their uptake of the vaccine and potential correlates (informed by the WHO Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination framework). We analyzed uptake and used adjusted multivariable logistic regression models to explore how ‘what people think and feel’ constructs were associated with HCWs' motivation to be vaccinated.ResultsOf the surveyed HCWs, 82.5% had received the first COVID-19 vaccine dose. Motivation (eagerness to be vaccinated) was strongly associated with confidence in vaccine benefits (adjusted OR [aOR] 9.85, 95% CI 5.50 to 17.61) and with vaccine safety (aOR 4.60, 95% CI 2.92 to 7.23), but not with perceived COVID-19 infection risk (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.16). Of all the information sources about COVID-19 vaccination, 37.5% were reportedly negative in tone.ConclusionsHCWs in Malawi have a high motivation to be vaccinated and a high COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Disseminating vaccine benefits and safety messages via social media and social networks may be persuasive for individuals who are unmotivated to be vaccinated and less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.

The quest for more COVID-19 vaccinations in Africa

Pediatric Vaccine Hesitancy and COVID-19

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccine side effects have a fundamental role in public confidence in the vaccine and its uptake process. Thus far, evidence on vaccine safety has been exclusively obtained from manufacturer-sponsored studies; therefore, this study is designed to assess post-COVID-19 vaccine complications in Makkah province, Saudi Arabia.MethodA cross-sectional study included 840 subjects conducted from August to November 2022 to collect data about COVID-19 vaccine side effects. A validated questionnaire was used with 21 multiple-choice items covering demographic data, COVID-19 vaccination type, side effects, and medication used to relieve side effects. The online Raosoft sample size calculator (Raosoft Inc., Seattle, Washington) was utilized for sample size calculation. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York) was utilized to carry out descriptive statistics. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate normal data distribution. Significance of categorized data made by the Pearson's Chi-Squared test and of the vaccination side effects experienced in general wellbeing on a scale of 1-10 by the Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultThe survey found that most participants in the 18-26 age group were from Jeddah, women, and Saudis. Only 7.1% of participants had comorbidities alone, and 63.1% of participants had previously had COVID-19. The vaccine types used in this study were primarily Pfizer (83.3%), AstraZeneca (9.5%), Moderna (3.6%), and combination vaccines (3.6%). The majority of the participants received vaccination up to the third dose. No side effects were reported by 9.5% of participants, while mild and severe side effects were reported by 90.5% and 23.8% of participants, respectively. Mild side effects included injection site pain, redness, tenderness, or itching (34.5%), fatigue (22.6%), low-grade fever, chills, diarrhea, headache (17.9%), and myalgia (14.3%).ConclusionThe majority of the side effects of COVID-19 vaccination were minor reactions (90.5%), but 23.8% were found to be serious side effects, most of which lasted one to three days. More independent studies are needed to investigate gender differences, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, and the prevalence of side effects in other populations conducted by academic institutions. Additional independent research on vaccine safety is urgently needed to increase public confidence in vaccines and to better understand risk factors for vaccine side effects.

<h3>Abstract</h3> <h3>Introduction</h3> One of the primary reasons for hesitancy in taking COVID-19 vaccines is the fear of side effects. This study primarily aims to inspect the potential side effects of...

With the arrival of vaccines against the novel coronavirus in late 2020, the issue of how vaccines should be distributed and which groups should be prioritized has become salient. We study popular attitudes toward the distribution of COVID‐19 vaccines and how these have changed over the course of the pandemic in Switzerland, drawing on data from two rounds of an original public opinion survey conducted in the spring and winter of 2020. We find that the public supports prioritizing vulnerable groups such as health care workers or the elderly. We also find a notable degree of cross‐generational solidarity: younger age cohorts prioritize the elderly, while older groups prioritize (typically younger) health care workers. We then examine whether this finding is not in fact driven by vaccine hesitancy. This is not the case for older age groups, whose solidarity thus seems to be genuine. Vaccine hesitancy is an issue among younger groups, however.