Suchergebnisse

Last week, the European Medicines Agency declared the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine safe and effective, after several European Union member states had suspended its use because of blood clot concerns. Will the public trust this message? This week's news could help—a U.S. phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine shows promising efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. But sentiments toward vaccines are volatile and reflect external events—such as recent concern about AstraZeneca's efficacy data—as well as internal emotions.

Many public health initiatives encouraging positive health behaviours require patient cooperation in the face of perceived costs and health risks. Ongoing public health crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the organ shortage, underscore the necessity of incorporating an understanding of human cooperation and the motivators for cooperation into social and public health policy. We explore the costs, benefits and motivators regarding cooperation in the cases of vaccination and organ donation. We likewise explore policy incentives that have successfully encouraged cooperation with these positive health behaviours. We find that appeals to morality, reciprocity and reputation are important behavioural predictors of cooperation. However, we find that cooperation is a fragile state, vulnerable to the individual's perceptions of the risks, as well as external social, cultural and political forces, such as social media-disseminated misinformation, which can sway attitudes to health behaviours, including cooperation. Drawing from the literature, we conclude by calling for a nuanced understanding of cooperation in a number of policy recommendations. Notably, we underscore: the volatile emotional levers affecting cooperation; the risks of overusing restrictive mandates; the consideration of short- and long-term consequences of social policies; and the need for locally and culturally tailored, as well as nationally relevant, policies.

As the world begins the rollout of multiple COVID-19 vaccines, pandemic exit strategies hinge on widespread acceptance of these vaccines. In this study, we perform a large-scale global exploratory study to examine the levels of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and explore sociodemographic determinants of acceptance. Methods Between October 31, 2020 and December 15, 2020, 26,759 individuals were surveyed across 32 countries via nationally representative survey designs. Bayesian methods are used to estimate COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and explore the sociodemographic determinants of uptake, as well as the link between self-reported health and faith in the government's handling of the pandemic and acceptance. Results Here we show that intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine is low in Lebanon, France, Croatia, and Serbia and there is population-level polarisation in acceptance in Poland and Pakistan. Averaged across all countries, being male, over 65, having a high level of education, and believing that the government is handling the pandemic well are associated with increased stated acceptance, but there are country-specific deviations. A belief that the government is handling the pandemic well in Brazil and the United States is associated with lower vaccination intent. In the United Kingdom, we find that approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 did not appear to have an impact on the UK's vaccine acceptance, though as rollout has continued into 2021, the UK's uptake exceeds stated intent in large-scale surveys conducted before rollout. Conclusions Identifying factors that may modulate uptake of novel COVID-19 vaccines can inform effective immunisation programmes and policies. Differential stated intent to accept vaccines between socio-demographic groups may yield insights into the specific causes of low confidence and may suggest and inform targeted communication policies to boost confidence.

Biomedical interventions promise achievement of health-related Millennium Development Goals provided social-, capacity- and knowledge-based constraints to scaling up and reaching marginalized people at risk, are addressed, and balance between prevention and treatment is struck. We argue for a new approach: multi-stakeholder capacity building and learning for empowerment: MuSCLE. MuSCLE is used as a way to frame three systemic weaknesses in traditional health science and policy approaches: 1) a lack of engagement with people at risk to build a collective understanding of the contexts of health problems; 2) a lack of multi-criteria evaluation of alternative interventions; and 3) a lack of attention paid to integrated capacity building. The MuSCLE framework responds in three ways: 1) Participatory assessment of the ecological, socio-cultural, economic and political contexts of health, identifying priorities using risk and vulnerability science, and modeling drivers; 2) Selection among intervention alternatives that makes ecological, socio-cultural, economic and political tradeoffs transparent; and 3) Integrated capacity building for sustainable and adaptive interventions. Literature and field lessons support the argument, and guidelines are set down. A MuSCLE approach argues for a transformation in health science and policy in order to achieve Millennium Development Goals for health.

AbstractIn 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) named "Vaccine Hesitancy" one of the top 10 threats to global health. Shortly afterward, the COVID‐19 pandemic emerged as the world's predominant health concern. COVID‐19 vaccines of several types have been developed, tested, and partially deployed with remarkable speed; vaccines are now the primary control measure and hope for a return to normalcy. However, hesitancy concerning these vaccines, along with resistance to masking and other control measures, remains a substantial obstacle. The previous waves of vaccine hesitancy that led to the WHO threat designation, together with recent COVID‐19 experience, provide a window for viewing new forms of social amplification of risk (SAR). Not surprisingly, vaccines provide fertile ground for questions, anxieties, concerns, and rumors. These appear in new globalized hyperconnected communications landscapes and in the context of complex human (social, economic, and political) systems that exhibit evolving concerns about vaccines and authorities. We look at drivers, impacts, and implications for vaccine initiatives in several recent historical examples and in the current efforts with COVID‐19 vaccination. Findings and insights were drawn from the Vaccine Confidence Project's decade long monitoring of media and social media and its related research efforts. The trends in vaccine confidence and resistance have implications for updating the social amplification of risk framework (SARF); in turn, SARF has practical implications for guiding efforts to alleviate vaccine hesitancy and to mitigate harms from intentional and unintentional vaccine scares.

BACKGROUND: Maternal vaccination is key to decreasing maternal and infant mortality globally. Yet perceptions about maternal vaccines and immunization among pregnant women are often understudied, particularly in low- and middle- income countries. This qualitative study explored trust, views, and attitudes towards maternal immunization among pregnant women in Mexico. A total of 54 women from Mexico City and Toluca participated in the in-depth interviews and focus groups. We explored participants' experiences with maternal vaccination, as well as how they navigated the health system, searched for information, and made decisions around maternal immunization. RESULTS: Our findings point to issues around access and quality of maternal healthcare, including immunizations services. While healthcare professionals were recognized for their expertise, participants reported not receiving enough information to make informed decisions and used online search engines and digital media to obtain more information about maternal healthcare. Some participants held strong doubts over the benefits of vaccination and were hesitant about the safety and efficacy of maternal vaccines. These concerns were also shared by pregnant women who had been vaccinated. Some participants disclosed low levels of trust in government and vaccination campaigns. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women, soon to be parents and making vaccination decisions for their child, constitute an important target group for policymakers seeking optimal maternal as well as childhood immunization coverage. Our findings highlight the importance of targeted communication, trust-building and engagement strategies to strengthen confidence in immunization amongst this group.

BACKGROUND: Maternal vaccination is key to decreasing maternal and infant mortality globally. Yet perceptions about maternal vaccines and immunization among pregnant women are often understudied, particularly in low- and middle- income countries. This qualitative study explored trust, views, and attitudes towards maternal immunization among pregnant women in Mexico. A total of 54 women from Mexico City and Toluca participated in the in-depth interviews and focus groups. We explored participants' experiences with maternal vaccination, as well as how they navigated the health system, searched for information, and made decisions around maternal immunization. RESULTS: Our findings point to issues around access and quality of maternal healthcare, including immunizations services. While healthcare professionals were recognized for their expertise, participants reported not receiving enough information to make informed decisions and used online search engines and digital media to obtain more information about maternal healthcare. Some participants held strong doubts over the benefits of vaccination and were hesitant about the safety and efficacy of maternal vaccines. These concerns were also shared by pregnant women who had been vaccinated. Some participants disclosed low levels of trust in government and vaccination campaigns. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women, soon to be parents and making vaccination decisions for their child, constitute an important target group for policymakers seeking optimal maternal as well as childhood immunization coverage. Our findings highlight the importance of targeted communication, trust-building and engagement strategies to strengthen confidence in immunization amongst this group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11184-y.

OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to determine if return rates of consent forms for vaccination could be improved when Vaxcards were offered as an incentive to school children. SETTING: Nineteen schools in South East Melbourne participated. INTERVENTIONS: Students in the experimental arm received a pack of Vaxcards when they returned their government consent form. OUTCOME MEASURES: Return of 'yes' consent forms for vaccination as part of a local government council vaccine programme was the primary outcome of this trial. Return rates were compared between the intervention and control schools and with historical return rates. RESULTS: Secondary school students (N=3087) from 19 schools participated. Compared with historical returns, a small global reduction in 'yes' responses to consent forms of −4.21% in human papilloma virus consent 'yes' responses and −4.69% for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis was observed across all schools. No difference between the experimental and control groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Low 'yes' consent rates and reduction in consent rates between 2018 and 2019 for all groups are concerning. This finding highlights the need for behaviour change interventions across all groups to increase vaccine confidence. Lack of effect of incentivisation with Vaxcards in this study may have been due to the timing of receiving the cards (after the decision to vaccinate had been made, not before) and the limited intensity of the intervention. Optimising the timing and the intensity of exposure to Vaxcards could improve the outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001753246.

Developing and implementing new immunization policies in response to shifting epidemiology is a critical public health component. We adopted a mixed-methods approach (via narrative literature review [101 articles] and 9 semi-structured interviews) to evaluate policy development in response to shifting measles epidemiology in six European countries (Italy, Belgium, Germany, Romania, UK, and Ukraine); where policies and strategies have evolved in response to country-specific disease and vaccination patterns. Periodic outbreaks have occurred in all countries against a background of declining measles-containing-vaccine (MCV) uptake and increasing public vaccine hesitancy (with substantial regional or social differences in measles burden and vaccine uptake). Health-care worker (HCW) vaccine skepticism is also seen. While many outbreaks arise or involve specific susceptible populations (e.g., minority/migrant communities), the broader pattern is spread to the wider (and generally older) population; often among incompletely/non-vaccinated individuals as a legacy of previous low uptake. Immunization policy and strategic responses are influenced by political and social factors, where public mistrust contributes to vaccine hesitancy. A strong centralized immunization framework (allied with effective regional implementation and coherent political commitment) can effectively increase uptake. Mandatory vaccination has increased childhood MCV uptake in Italy, and similar benefits could be anticipated for other countries considering vaccine mandates. Although possible elsewhere, socio-political considerations render mandating impractical in other countries, where targeted immunization activities to bolster routine uptake are more important. Addressing HCW skepticism, knowledge gaps, improving access and increasing public/community engagement and education to address vaccine hesitancy/mistrust (especially in communities with specific unmet needs) is critical.

Background: The UK Government is considering the introduction of vaccine passports for domestic use and to facilitate international travel for UK residents. Although vaccine incentivisation has been cited as a motivating factor for vaccine passports, it is unclear whether vaccine passports are likely to increase inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: We conducted a large-scale national survey in the UK of 17,611 adults between 9 and 27 April 2021. Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification is used to provide unbiased national-level estimates of the impact of the introduction of vaccine passports on inclination to accept COVID-19 vaccines and identify the differential impact of passports on uptake inclination across socio-demographic groups. Findings: We find that a large minority of respondents report that vaccination passports for domestic use (46·5%) or international travel (42·0%) would make them no more or less inclined to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and a sizeable minority of respondents also state that they would 'definitely' accept a COVID-19 vaccine and that vaccine passports would make them more inclined to vaccinate (48·8% for domestic use and 42·9% for international travel). However, we find that the introduction of vaccine passports will likely lower inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine once baseline vaccination intent has been adjusted for. This decrease is larger if passports were required for domestic use rather than for facilitating international travel. Being male (OR 0·87, 0·76 to 0·99) and having degree qualifications (OR 0·84, 0·72 to 0·94) is associated with a decreased inclination to vaccinate if passports were required for domestic use (while accounting for baseline vaccination intent), while Christians (OR 1·23, 1·08 to 1·41) have an increased inclination over atheists or agnostics. Change in inclination is strongly connected to stated vaccination intent and will therefore unlikely shift attitudes among Black or Black British respondents, younger age groups, and non-English speakers. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted in light of sub-national trends in uptake rates across the UK, as our results suggest that passports may be viewed less positively among socio-demographic groups that cluster in large urban areas. We call for further evidence on the impact of vaccine certification and the potential fallout for routine immunization programmes in both the UK and in wider global settings, especially those with low overall trust in vaccinations. Funding: This survey was funded by the Merck Investigator Studies Program (MISP).

This survey was funded by the Merck Investigator Studies Program (MISP). ; Background The UK Government is considering the introduction of vaccine passports for domestic use and to facilitate international travel for UK residents. Although vaccine incentivisation has been cited as a motivating factor for vaccine passports, it is unclear whether vaccine passports are likely to increase inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods We conducted a large-scale national survey in the UK of 17,611 adults between 9 and 27 April 2021. Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification is used to provide unbiased national-level estimates of the impact of the introduction of vaccine passports on inclination to accept COVID-19 vaccines and identify the differential impact of passports on uptake inclination across socio-demographic groups. Findings We find that a large minority of respondents report that vaccination passports for domestic use (46·5%) or international travel (42·0%) would make them no more or less inclined to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and a sizeable minority of respondents also state that they would 'definitely' accept a COVID-19 vaccine and that vaccine passports would make them more inclined to vaccinate (48·8% for domestic use and 42·9% for international travel). However, we find that the introduction of vaccine passports will likely lower inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine once baseline vaccination intent has been adjusted for. This decrease is larger if passports were required for domestic use rather than for facilitating international travel. Being male (OR 0·87, 0·76 to 0·99) and having degree qualifications (OR 0·84, 0·72 to 0·94) is associated with a decreased inclination to vaccinate if passports were required for domestic use (while accounting for baseline vaccination intent), while Christians (OR 1·23, 1·08 to 1·41) have an increased inclination over atheists or agnostics. Change in inclination is strongly connected to stated vaccination intent and will therefore unlikely shift attitudes among Black or Black British respondents, younger age groups, and non-English speakers. Interpretation Our findings should be interpreted in light of sub-national trends in uptake rates across the UK, as our results suggest that passports may be viewed less positively among socio-demographic groups that cluster in large urban areas. We call for further evidence on the impact of vaccine certification and the potential fallout for routine immunization programmes in both the UK and in wider global settings, especially those with low overall trust in vaccinations. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed