Vaccination Wars

<i>Background:</i> The impact of COVID-19 on people living with HIV (PLWH) is particularly concerning due to their existing health vulnerabilities. The low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine and the failure to achieve herd immunity highlight the need to address vaccine hesitancy, especially in developing countries battling multiple infectious diseases. <i>Objective:</i> This study aimed to determine the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine risk perception and vaccine hesitancy among PLWH. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> An analytical cross-sectional design was used, involving 348 participants from Parirenyatwa Centre of Excellence, recruited via systematic random sampling. Data collection, following ethical approval, was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. The data were categorized into structure, process, and outcome, and analyzed with SPSS version 22. <i>Results:</i> The study found that 79.9% of PLWH perceived a risk in taking the COVID-19 vaccine. About 55% had moderate knowledge of COVID-19, and 48.4% of those vaccinated had completed the vaccine course, with 43.2% receiving two doses and 7.2% only one dose. Motivations for vaccination included accessing services, travel compliance, work allowances, and entry permissions. Vaccine hesitancy was evident in 56% of participants, who were also unlikely to recommend vaccination to others. A positive correlation (r=0.159, p<0.03) was observed between vaccine risk perception and hesitancy. Barriers included fear of long waits, vaccine safety concerns, and insufficient information. <i>Conclusions:</i> The study demonstrated a significant positive correlation between vaccine risk perception and hesitancy among PLWH. It underscores the necessity of tailored vaccination messages addressing the specific concerns of PLWH and the need for increased governmental investment in awareness campaigns to achieve 75% herd immunity.

BackgroundThe urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic called upon the joint efforts from the scientific and private sectors to work together to track vaccine acceptance and prevention behaviors.MethodsOur study utilized individual responses to the Delphi Group at Carnegie Mellon University U.S. COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, in partnership with Facebook. We retrieved survey data from January 2021 to February 2022 (n = 13,426,245) to examine contextual and individual-level predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, vaccination, and mask wearing in the United States. Adjusted logistic regression models were developed to examine individual and ZIP code predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination status. Given the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled out in phases in the U.S. we conducted analyses stratified by time, January 2021-May 2021 (Time 1) and June 2021-February 2022 (Time 2).ResultsIn January 2021 only 9% of U.S. Facebook respondents reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and 45% were vaccine hesitant. By February 2022, 80% of U.S. Facebook respondents were vaccinated and only 18% were vaccine hesitant. Individuals who were older, held higher educational degrees, worked in white collar jobs, wore a mask most or all the time, and identified as white and Asian had higher COVID-19 vaccination rates and lower vaccine hesitancy across Time 1 and Time 2. Essential workers and blue-collar occupations had lower COVID vaccinations and higher vaccine hesitancy. By Time 2, all adults were eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, but blacks and multiracial individuals had lower vaccination and higher vaccine hesitancy compared to whites. Those 55 years and older and females had higher odds of wearing masks most or all the time. Protective service, construction, and installation and repair occupations had lower odds of wearing masks. ZIP Code level percentage of the population with a bachelors’ which was associated with mask wearing, higher vaccination, and lower vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionAssociations found in earlier phases of the pandemic were generally found to also be present later in the pandemic, indicating stability in inequities. Additionally, inequities in these important outcomes suggests more work is needed to bridge gaps to ensure that the burden of COVID-19 risk does not disproportionately fall upon subgroups of the population.

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccination is crucial for vulnerable people with underlying chronic conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). These individuals face unique challenges, including...

Previous article FreeNotes on ContributorsNotes on ContributorsPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreBrooke Abounader is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto. She studies the role of representational inaccuracy in scientific modeling.Anna Akasoy, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the Oriental Institute at Oxford, specializes in the intellectual and cultural history of the medieval Muslim West, contacts between the Islamic world and other cultures, and the role of Islamic history and culture in modern political debates in Western Europe.Garland E. Allen is Professor of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis. He has a special interest in the history of genetics (and eugenics), evolution, and embryology and their interactions in the first half of the twentieth century.Casper Andersen is an assistant professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. His main area of research is history of science, technology, and empires. His publications include the monograph British Engineers and Africa, 1875–1914 (2011), and he is coediting the forthcoming five-volume collection British Governance and Administration in Africa, 1880–1940 (2013).Warwick Anderson is Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Professor in the Department of History and the Centre for Values, Ethics, and the Law in Medicine at the University of Sydney. He is the author of The Collectors of Lost Souls: Turning Kuru Scientists into Whitemen (Johns Hopkins, 2008) and coeditor of Unconscious Dominions: Psychoanalysis, Colonial Trauma, and Postcolonial Sovereignties (Duke, 2011). His current research explores the global history of scientific investigations of race mixing in the twentieth century.Peder Anker is an associate professor at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study and in the Environmental Studies Program at New York University. His works include Imperial Ecology: Environmental Order in the British Empire, 1895–1945 (Harvard University Press, 2001), and From Bauhaus to Eco-House: A History of Ecological Design (Louisiana State University Press, 2010). See www.pederanker.com.Ross Bassett is Associate Professor of History at North Carolina State University. He is working on a history of Indians who studied at MIT.Jakob Bek-Thomsen has a postdoctoral position at the Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University. He has recently finished his Ph.D. dissertation, entitled “Nicolaus Steno and the Making of an Early Modern Career: Nature, Knowledge, and Networks at the Court of the Medici, 1657–1672.” He is currently working on the emergence of finance and its connections with natural philosophy and religion in the early modern period.Jim Bennett is Director of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford. His research interests lie in the history of instruments, of practical mathematics, and of astronomy.Marvin Bolt, Director of the Webster Institute at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, is authoring the Adler's Optical Instruments catalogue. He served on the editorial team of the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, studies the Herschel family, and researches the history of the telescope, early seventeenth-century examples in particular.Christian Bonah is Professor for the History of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Strasbourg and a member of the Institut Universitaire de France. He has worked on comparative history of medical education, the history of medicaments, and the history of human experimentation. Recent work includes research on risk perception and management in drug scandals as well as studies on medical films.Sonja Brentjes is currently a researcher in a “project of excellence” sponsored by the Junta of Andalusia at the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and History of Science of the University of Seville. She publishes on three major topics: Arabic and Persian versions of Euclid's Elements, the mathematical sciences at madrasas in Islamic societies before 1700, and cross-cultural exchange of knowledge in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean.Thomas Broman is Professor and Chair of the Department of History of Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research interests include eighteenth-century science and medicine, and he is currently writing a survey of science in the Enlightenment.Massimo Bucciantini is Professor of History of Science at the University of Siena. He is coeditor, with Michele Camerota, of Galilaeana: Journal of Galileo Studies. His publications include Galileo e Keplero (Einaudi, 2003; Les Belles Lettres, 2008), Italo Calvino e la scienza (Donzelli, 2007), and Auschwitz Experiment (Einaudi, 2011).Andrew J. Butrica, a former Chercheur Associé at the Centre de Recherches en Histoire des Sciences et Techniques in Paris, has published extensively on space history and has earned the Leopold Prize of the Organization of American Historians and the Robinson Prize of the National Council on Public History.Stefano Caroti is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Parma. His research interests include late medieval philosophy, particularly late scholastic debates on natural philosophy at the University of Paris.Chu Pingyi is a Research Fellow at the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. He has published widely on appropriations of Jesuit science and natural philosophy by their Chinese readers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century China.J. T. H. Connor is John Clinch Professor of Medical Humanities and History of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada. He is currently coeditor of the McGill-Queen's University Press History of Health, Medicine, and Society series. His latest book, a collection of essays coedited with Stephan Curtis entitled Medicine in the Remote and Rural North, 1800–2000, was published in 2011 by Pickering & Chatto in the Studies for the Society for the Social History of Medicine series.Scott DeGregorio is Associate Professor of English Literature at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. He specializes in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Latin literature, with a special focus on the Bible and its interpretation. He has published widely on the writings of Bede, most recently editing The Cambridge Companion to Bede.Michael Dettelbach has published widely on Alexander von Humboldt and is generally interested in science and culture in the revolutionary and Romantic eras. He directs Corporate and Foundation Relations at Boston University.Nadja Durbach is Associate Professor of History at the University of Utah. She is the author of Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England and Spectacle of Deformity: Freak Shows and Modern British Culture. She is now working on a book about beef, citizenship, and identity in modern Britain.David Edgerton is the Hans Rausing Professor, Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Imperial College London. His most recent book is Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War (London: Allen Lane, 2011; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).Paula Findlen is Ubaldo Pierotti Professor of Italian History at Stanford University. Her publications include Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (California, 1994), and she has a long-standing interest in the relations between knowledge and faith in the age of Galileo.Maurice A. Finocchiaro is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His latest books are The Essential Galileo (Hackett, 2008) and Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 280) (Springer, 2010). He is now working on the Routledge Guidebook to Galileo's Dialogue.Mike Fortun is an associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the author of Promising Genomics: Iceland and deCODE Genetics in a World of Speculation (University of California Press, 2008).Stephen Gaukroger is Professor of History of Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Sydney and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen. Among his recent publications are The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210 to 1685 (Oxford University Press, 2005), and The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1680 to 1760 (Oxford University Press, 2010). He is now at work on the third volume in this series: The Naturalization of the Human and the Humanization of Nature: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1750 to 1825.Thomas F. Glick is Professor of History at Boston University. His two research fields are medieval technology (irrigation systems, water mills) and modern science (Darwin, Freud, and Einstein).Susana Gómez is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. She is a specialist in seventeenth-century Italian science, with particular interests in atomism and experimental science. Much of her current work concerns issues about the representation of nature in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.Frederick Gregory is Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the University of Florida. His research has dealt with the history of science and religion and with German science in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He is currently engaged in writing a biography of the nineteenth-century Moravian physicist-philosopher Jakob Friedrich Fries.David E. Hahm is Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University. He is the author of The Origins of Stoic Cosmology and articles on Greek and Roman intellectual and cultural history, especially Hellenistic philosophy and historiography.Minghui Hu served as an Andrew Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Chicago from 2003 to 2005. He joined the Department of History at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2005 and is now completing his book manuscript Cosmopolitan Confucians: The Passage to Modern Chinese Thought.Jeffrey Allan Johnson, Professor of History at Villanova University, has published mainly on the social and institutional history of chemical science and technology in modern Germany. Recently he was guest editor for Ambix, 2011, 58(2), a special issue on “Chemistry in the Aftermath of World Wars.”Jessica Keating is a Solmsen Fellow in the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is writing a book entitled The Machinations of German Court Culture: Early Modern Automata.Peter C. Kjærgaard is Professor of Evolutionary Studies at Aarhus University. He has published widely in the history of modern science, including books on Wittgenstein and the sciences, the history of universities, and the history of science in Denmark. His current research focuses on the history and popular understanding of human evolution.David Knight has taught history of science at Durham University in England since 1964 and is a past President of the British Society for the History of Science. He published The Making of Modern Science in 2009 (Polity) and is writing a book on the Scientific Revolution.Bernard Lightman is Professor of Humanities at York University, where he is Director of the Institute for Science and Technology Studies. He is also the Editor of the History of Science Society's flagship journal, Isis. His most recent publications include Victorian Popularizers of Science, Evolutionary Naturalism in Victorian Britain, and Science in the Marketplace (coedited with Aileen Fyfe). He is also general editor of a monograph series titled “Science and Culture in the Nineteenth Century” published by Pickering & Chatto. He is currently working on a biography of John Tyndall and is one of the editors of the John Tyndall Correspondence Project, an international collaborative effort to obtain, digitalize, transcribe, and publish all surviving letters to and from Tyndall.Pamela O. Long is a historian of late medieval/early modern history of science and technology. She is the coeditor and coauthor of The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript (MIT Press, 2009). Her books include Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400–1600 (Oregon State University Press, 2011). She is at work on a history of engineering and knowledge in late sixteenth-century Rome.Morris Low is an associate professor of Japanese history at the University of Queensland, where he is Acting Head of the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies. He coedited a special issue of Historia Scientiarum (2011, 21[1]), and his recent books include Japan on Display (2006).Christine MacLeod is Professor Emerita of History at the University of Bristol. She is the author of Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism, and British Identity, 1750–1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2007), and Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1988).Paolo Mancosu is Professor and Chair of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main areas of interest are mathematical logic and history and philosophy of mathematics and logic. His current work is focused on the philosophy of mathematical practice. He has been a Guggenheim Fellow (2008) and a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (2009).Hannah Marcus is a doctoral student studying history and the history of science at Stanford University. She is interested in the relationship between intellectual and religious culture in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Italy.David Meskill is an assistant professor of history at Dowling College on Long Island. His book Optimizing the German Workforce: Labor Administration from Bismarck to the Economic Miracle was published by Berghahn Books in 2010.John Pickstone is Wellcome Research Professor in the University of Manchester Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine. His publications include Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine (Manchester University Press, 2000) and The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences, Volume 6 of the Cambridge History of Science (edited with Peter Bowler) (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Matthias Rieger is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Sociology, Leibniz University, Hannover, and the author of Helmholtz Musicus: Die Objektivierung der Musik im 19. Jahrhundert durch Helmholtz' Lehre von den Tonempfindungen (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006).Joy Rohde is Assistant Professor of History at Trinity University in San Antonio. Her research focuses on Cold War social science and politics. She is completing a book, under contract with Cornell University Press, titled The Social Scientists' War: Knowledge, Statecraft, and Democracy in the Era of Containment.William G. Rothstein is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He is the author of several books on American medical history, most recently Public Health and the Risk Factor (2003).Lisa T. Sarasohn is Professor of History at Oregon State University. Her latest publication is The Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish: Reason and Fancy during the Scientific Revolution (Johns Hopkins, 2010). She is working on a cultural history of insects in early modern England.Arne Schirrmacher teaches history of science at the Humboldt University in Berlin and is currently on leave at the University of California, Berkeley. His research concerns the history of the modern mathematical sciences, in particular quantum theory, the history of scientific socialization within student groups in Germany since 1850, and science communication in twentieth-century Europe.Petra G. Schmidl specialized in premodern astronomy in Islamic societies. Since 2009, she has worked as a research assistant at the University of Bonn. With Eva Orthmann and Mo˙hammad Karīmī Zanjānī A˙sl, she is investigating the Dustūr al-Munajjimīn as a source for the history of the Ismāʿīliyya and their astronomical and astrological concepts.Charlotte Schubert is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Leipzig. Her publications include Anacharsis der Weise: Nomade, Skythe, Grieche (2010), Der hippokratische Eid (2005), Hippokrates (coedited, 2006), and Frauenmedizin in der Antike (coedited, 1999).Vera Schwach is a historian and senior researcher at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research, and Higher Education (NIFU). She has published analyses in science policy and has written extensively on the history of marine science, especially on fisheries biology and the management of sea fisheries in the Nordic countries and in Europe.Jonathan Seitz is an assistant teaching professor of history at Drexel University. He is particularly interested in vernacular ideas about nature and the supernatural in early modern Europe. His book, Witchcraft and Inquisition in Early Modern Venice, was published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press.Helaine Selin is Science Librarian and Faculty Associate in the School of Natural Sciences at Hampshire College. Her work includes editing The Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (Springer, 2008) and the series Science Across Cultures. Happiness Across Cultures is due out in Spring 2012.Efram Sera-Shriar received his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. He is now working as a research associate on the John Tyndall Correspondence Project, organized by Montana State University and York University in Toronto.Asif A. Siddiqi is an associate professor of history at Fordham University. His most recent book is The Red Rockets' Glare: Spaceflight and the Soviet Imagination, 1857–1957 (Cambridge University Press, 2010). He is now writing a book on the effects of the Stalinist purges on Soviet science and technology.Mark G. Spencer is Associate Professor of History at Brock University. His book, David Hume and Eighteenth-Century America (University of Rochester Press, 2005), was issued in a paperback edition in 2010. He is also current President of the Eighteenth-Century Scottish Studies Society.Matthew Stanley is an associate professor at New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study, where he teaches and researches the history and philosophy of science. He is the author of Practical Mystic: Religion, Science, and A. S. Eddington (Chicago, 2007), and he is now completing a manuscript on the history of science and religion in the Victorian period.John Steele is Associate Professor of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies at Brown University. His recent publications include A Brief Introduction to Astronomy in the Middle East (Saqi Books, 2008) and Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Study of the Moon's Motion (1691–1757) (Springer, 2012). He is currently working on an edition and commentary of a newly discovered astrological compendium from Babylon.Larry Stewart is Professor of History at the University of Saskatchewan. He is editing a book on the uses of humans in experiment and writing a study of experiment in the Enlightenment and the first industrial revolution.Bert Theunissen is Professor of the History of Science at the Institute for History and Foundations of Science, affiliated with the Descartes Centre for the History of the Sciences and the Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. His current work focuses on the history of animal breeding, particularly on the interactions between scientific and practical workers in livestock breeding in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For his publications see http://www.descartescentre.com.Carsten Timmermann is a lecturer at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Manchester. His research and teaching focus on issues in the history of modern medicine and biology, including chronic disease, cancer research, and pharmaceuticals.The Rev. Jeffrey P. von Arx, S.J., became the eighth President of Fairfield University in 2004. A historian by discipline, he is the author of numerous articles as well as the books Progress and Pessimism: Religion, Politics, and History in Late Nineteenth-Century Britain (Harvard University Press, 1985) and Varieties of Ultramontanism (Catholic University Press, 1998). He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.Michael Worboys is Director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine and the Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine at the University of Manchester. He specializes in the history of infectious diseases as well as the application of research in clinical practices. He has recently started new work on dog breeding, feeding, training, and welfare from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. His publications include Mad Dogs and Englishmen: Rabies in Britain, 1830–2000 (with Neil Pemberton), and Spreading Germs: Disease Theories and Medical Practice in Britain, 1865–1900. Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 103, Number 2June 2012 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/666369 © 2012 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

BackgroundAlthough vaccination has been shown to be one of the most important interventions, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy remains one of the top 10 global public health challenges worldwide.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate (1) major determinants of vaccine hesitancy, (2) changes in the determinants of vaccine hesitancy at different time periods, and (3) the potential factors affecting vaccine acceptance.MethodsThis study applied a mixed methods approach to explore the potential determinants contributing to vaccine hesitancy among the Taiwanese population. The quantitative design of this study involved using Google Trends search query data. We chose the search term “疫苗“ (vaccine), selected ”台灣” (Taiwan) as the location, and selected the period between December 18, 2020, and July 31, 2021. The rising keywords related to vaccine acceptance and hesitancy were collected. Based on the responses obtained from the qualitative study and the rising keywords obtained in Google Trends, the 3 most popular keywords related to vaccine hesitancy were identified and used as search queries in Google Trends between December 18, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to generate relative search volumes (RSVs). Lastly, autoregressive integrated moving average modeling was used to forecast the RSVs for the 3 keywords between May 29 and July 31, 2021. The estimated RSVs were compared to the observed RSVs in Google Trends within the same time frame.ResultsThe 4 prevailing factors responsible for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy were doubts about the government and manufacturers, side effects, deaths associated with vaccination, and efficacy of vaccination. During the vaccine observation period, “political role” was the overarching consideration leading to vaccine hesitancy. During the peak of the pandemic, side effects, death, and vaccine protection were the main factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. The popularity of the 3 frequently searched keywords “side effects,” “vaccine associated deaths,” and “vaccine protection” continued to rise throughout the pandemic outbreak. Lastly, the highest Google search queries related to COVID-19 vaccines emerged as “side effects” prior to vaccination, deaths associated with vaccines during the period when single vaccines were available, and “side effects” and “vaccine protection” during the period when multiple vaccines were available.ConclusionsInvestigating the key factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy appears to be a fundamental task that needs to be undertaken to ensure effective implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. Google Trends may be used as a complementary infoveillance tool by government agencies for future vaccine policy implementation and communication.

Background: Incomplete childhood immunization against communicable diseases is a major concern and vaccine hesitancy remains a hurdle to overcome in primary vaccination programs. This study was to examine the parents’ vaccine knowledge, awareness and hesitancy in relation to their children’s immunization status. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study design was used. The parents who brought their children for immunization visit or follow-up at four public health clinics located in Sandakan district were invited to participate in this survey. Informed consent was obtained before each participant completed a hard copy of self-administered questionnaire in either English or Malay versions. Results: Of 405 parents responded, they generally had good knowledge and awareness of vaccines, only a small percentage (6.8%) of parents were found vaccine hesitant. There were significant differences in vaccine knowledge and awareness in those from different education levels and employment status; similarly, these two factors also significantly affected the vaccine hesitancy among the parents. The parents’ knowledge score was found to be moderately associated with their awareness (r = 0.551, p < 0.01) and inversely correlated to vaccine hesitancy (r = −0.397, p < 0.01). Most of the children (n = 376, 92.8%) in the study were immunized. The children’s immunization status was significantly associated with the parents’ education level (p = 0.025). There was also a significant difference in the total vaccine knowledge scores between the groups of parents with different child immunization status (p = 0.05). Conclusion: This study revealed that parents with higher education had a better knowledge of vaccinations, were less vaccine hesitant and were more likely to ensure that their children complete the recommended course of immunization. It is crucial to ensure parents are well-informed about the safety and efficacy of vaccines so that the children are protected from communicable diseases by the child vaccination program.

Purpose of ReviewThe COVID-19 pandemic, since 2020, has affected health care services and access globally. Although the entire impact of COVID-19 pandemic on existing global public health is yet to be fully seen, the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global childhood immunization programs is of particular importance.Recent FindingsDisruptions to service delivery due to lockdowns, challenges in vaccination programs, vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, and political and social economic inequalities all posed a threat to existing childhood immunization programs. These potential threats were especially critical in LMIC where childhood immunization programs tend to experience suboptimal implementation.SummaryThis review provides an overview of childhood immunizations and discusses past pandemics particularly in LMIC, factors contributing to disparities in childhood immunizations, and reviews potential lessons to be learned from past pandemics. Vaccine hesitancy, social determinants of health, and best practices to help lessen the pandemic’s influence are also further elaborated. To address current challenges that hindered the progress made in prevention of childhood illnesses through vaccination campaigns and increased vaccine availability, lessons learned through best practices explored from past pandemics must be examined to mitigate impact of COVID-19 on childhood immunization and in turn conserve health and improve economic well-being of children especially in LMIC.

“Is it my problem if my father-in-law does not want to get vaccinated?”All of us must have encountered scenarios like the above. We have all met individuals who refused or hesitate to get vaccinated for COVID-19. They could be from our family members, our colleagues, our friends, our employees, our neighbors, our school, or communities, from anywhere! We do not need to look far. What will we do? Or how should we approach these situations?For more than a year now, we have been witnessing the unfolding of the roll out of the “biggest” vaccine drives in history. Furthermore, this COVID-19 pandemic challenged every individual to make a personal stand about accepting and even promoting vaccination. This issue of the Acta Medica Philippina includes two contributions that give us different perspectives on the phenomenon called “Vaccine Hesitancy.” Vaccine hesitancy is reluctance or refusal to get vaccinated even with theavailability of vaccines.While vaccine hesitancy is observed across the world, our issue looks specifically at the factors which contribute to the unique experiences in the Southeast Asian region and even more specifically to our country. These discussions will lead to a better understanding of drivers, both barriers and enablers to vaccine acceptance and uptake. This timely sharing of information comes at that crucial period when the vaccine hesitancy rates are high in our country despite efforts of our government to persuade as many individuals as possible to come for their COVID-19 booster vaccines. The World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance for countries and governments on how they can improve the vaccine uptake of their constituents.1 In addition to addressing the need for up-to-date information campaigns, governments and other “actors” who play major roles in the implementation of the vaccination program, especially during the current pandemic, need to listen and attune themselves to the main drivers of vaccine acceptance versus hesitancy. These are: 1) providing an enabling environment, 2) social influences; and 3) motivation.The paper of Hartigan-Go and group shows vaccine hesitancy research and how this information may be used to strategize vaccine education and communication campaigns to increase vaccine uptake.2The invited essay is a discussion on how the traumatic experience we all witnessed in recent national history with another novel vaccine is an important driver negatively affecting behavior toward vaccination campaigns; and how can we move forward from there.3We hope these contributions will help us all appreciate and respect the complexity of behavior related to vaccination, persuade our countrymen towards action that will help us achieve our desired goals for more, and work towards attaining our goal of better health for all.&#x0D; Regina P. Berba, MD, MScHospital Infection Control Unit, Philippine General HospitalCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila&#x0D; &#x0D; REFERENCES&#x0D; 1. Behavioural considerations for acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines: WHO Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health, meeting report, 15 October 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.2. Hartigan-Go KY, Mendoza RU, Ong MMA, Yap JK. COVID-19 Vaccine hesitancy in ASEAN: Insights from a Multi-wave Survey Database from July 2020 to March 2021. Acta Med Philipp. 2023;57(1):10-16.3. Berba RP. Addressing vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: Learning from the past and moving forward. Acta Med Philipp. 2023;57(1):4-9.

AimLittle research exists on coronavirus (COVID‐19) vaccine hesitancy among caregivers of children with cancer. We aimed to (a) describe vaccine hesitancy in parents of children with cancer for both their child and self, and (b) examine the mediating role of parent‐reported COVID impact on the association between COVID exposure and vaccine hesitancy.ProcedureWe conducted a national survey of parents of children with cancer via Facebook and Momcology, a pediatric cancer community‐based organization recruited February–May 2021. Parents completed standardized measures online. A series of mediation models assessed the role of COVID‐19 impact (e.g., effects on parenting and well‐being) on associations between COVID‐19 exposure (e.g., direct/indirect exposure) and vaccine hesitancy. Moderation models examined the role of treatment status, COVID‐19 exposure, impact, and vaccine hesitancy.ResultsParents (n = 491; 90% mothers; 93% White) reported moderate vaccine hesitancy (M = 2.08, SD = 0.76). Specifically, 18.5% (n = 90) reported they would not vaccinate their child, and 24.4% (n = 119) would only consider vaccination. Parents expressed higher concerns about vaccine side effects for their children (M = 3.01, SD = 0.95) than for themselves (M = 2.61, SD = 1.03; t[479] = 9.07, p < .01). Mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of impact (95% CI [−0.013, −0.001]) on the association between higher exposure and higher vaccine hesitancy (b = .02, p = .06). There was no moderating effect of treatment status. Income remained a significant covariate (b = −.11, p < .01).ConclusionLower parent‐reported COVID exposure, higher COVID impact, concern for side effects, and lower income may be important factors related to vaccine hesitancy among parents of children with cancer. Providers of childhood cancer survivors should address vaccine hesitancy and potential health risks.

Addressing the social inequities of vaccination: an imperative to close the gap

BackgroundThe development of effective vaccines was a promising tool for ending the pandemic. However, the success of a vaccination programme hinges on achieving substantial community acceptance. In Cameroon, numerous studies have investigated the level of acceptance, hesitancy, and perception of COVID-19 vaccines, with mixed results. To provide a comprehensive understanding of these parameters, this meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy and perception in Cameroon.MethodsA systematic search of online databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, was conducted to identify relevant research articles. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The extracted data were compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using R statistical software (version 4.3.3). The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and perception was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Funnel plots, Egger’s, and Begg’s tests were used to assess publication bias.ResultsOf the 1,346 records identified through the database search, 20 research articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The random-effects model showed that approximately 31.21% (95% CI: 23.49–38.94) of the participants was willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. More than two-thirds of the population (68.49%; 95% CI: 60.65–76.34) were vaccine hesitant. Half of the participants (51.81%; 95% CI: 42.70-60.93), had a negative perception of the COVID-19 vaccine. The acceptance rate progressed from the first semester of 2021 (27.21%; 95% CI: 10.38–44.05) to the first semester of 2022 (45.56%; 95% CI: 25.00-66.12). The pooled vaccine acceptance rate was 29.29% (95% CI: 19.86–38.72) for the general population and 39.24% (95% CI: 22.84–55.64) for healthcare workers. The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 70.39% (95% CI: 61.30–79.80) for the general population and 57.42% (95% CI: 4.05–71.80) for healthcare workers.ConclusionAlthough progress in vaccine acceptance, targeted interventions remain necessary to address vaccine hesitancy in the country. Strategies such as enhancing access to accurate information, fostering trust in institutions, and strengthening community engagement remain crucial for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines are considered to be a key to limiting and eliminating the infectious disease. However, the success of the vaccination program will rely on the rates of vaccine acceptance among the population.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the factors that influence vaccine hesitancy and vaccine acceptance, and to explore the unintended consequences of COVID-19 infections. The study will further explore the association between sociodemographic characteristics; health status; COVID-19–related knowledge, attitude, and practices; and its influence on vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among individuals living in urban and rural settings of Chennai, Tamil Nadu in the southern state of India.MethodsA cross-sectional study will be conducted between January 2021 and January 2023. A sample of approximately 25,000 individuals will be recruited and enrolled using a nonprobability complete enumeration sampling method from 11 selected urban and rural settings of Chennai. The data will be collected at one time point by administering the questionnaire to the eligible study participants. The collected data will be used to assess the rates of vaccine acceptance; hesitancy; and knowledge, attitudes, practices, and beliefs regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Lastly, the study questionnaire will be used to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 infection.ResultsA pilot of 2500 individuals has been conducted to pretest the survey questionnaire. The data collection was initiated on March 1, 2021, and the initial results are planned for publication by June 2021. Descriptive analysis of the gathered data will be performed using SAS v9.1, and reporting of the results will be done at 95% CIs and P=.049. The study will help explore the burden of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among individuals living in urban and rural settings of Chennai. Further, it will help to examine the variables that influence vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Lastly, the findings will help to design and develop a user-centered informatics platform that can deliver multimedia-driven health education modules tailored to facilitate vaccine uptake in varied settings.ConclusionsThe proposed study will help in understanding the rate and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the population of Chennai. The findings of the study would further facilitate the development of a multifaceted intervention to enhance vaccine acceptance among the population.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/29733

COVID-19 vaccine intentions in Australia

Promoting COVID-19 vaccination through music and drama-Lessons from early phase of the pandemic.

Vaccination provides great protection against several infections, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the endeavor faces multiple context-specific problems that affect its uptake, leading to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a focal barrier to the success of COVID-19 vaccination programs. This umbrella review aimed to present a summary of global data regarding vaccine hesitancy and acceptance rates among medical students, health professionals, and health care workers. In this regard, two databases, PubMed and Scopus, were selected for data retrieval and analysis. A search term and an inclusion/exclusion criterion were applied to summarize the findings of existing systematic reviews. A pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy with 95% confidence interval (CI) was taken as a prerequisite for this review. The results found a high percentage of COVID-19 vaccination ranging from 13.1% (95% CI, 6.9%-20.9%) to 46% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.54%), while the percentage of acceptance varied from 46% (95% CI, 37%-54%) to 83.0% (95% CI, 71%-96%) among medical students, health professionals, and health care workers. This umbrella review found a high percentage of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among medical students, health professionals, and health care workers. Further studies analyzing the determinants of vaccine hesitancy are important predictors for successful vaccination programs at the global level.