Popular Attitudes Toward the Distribution of Vaccines Against COVID-19: The Swiss Case.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Knotz CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242536 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Popular Attitudes Toward the Distribution of Vaccines Against COVID-19: The Swiss Case.
Knotz Carlo M CM Gandenberger Mia K MK Fossati Flavia F Bonoli Giuliano G
Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft = Revue suisse de science politique = Swiss political science review 20210517 2
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 gro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportancePregnant people and infants are at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Understanding changes in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and recently pregnant people is important for public health messaging.ObjectiveTo assess attitudinal trends regarding COVID-19 vaccines by (1) vaccination status and (2) race, ethnicity, and language among samples of pregnant and recently pregnant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) members from 2021 to 2023.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional surveye study included pregnant or recently pregnant members of the VSD, a collaboration of 13 health care systems and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unvaccinated, non-Hispanic Black, and Spanish-speaking members were oversampled. Wave 1 took place from October 2021 to February 2022, and wave 2 took place from November 2022 to February 2023. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to September 2023.ExposuresSelf-reported or electronic health record (EHR)-derived race, ethnicity, and preferred language.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported vaccination status and attitudes toward monovalent (wave 1) or bivalent Omicron booster (wave 2) COVID-19 vaccines. Sample- and response-weighted analyses assessed attitudes by vaccination status and 3 race, ethnicity, and language groupings of interest.ResultsThere were 1227 respondents; all identified as female, the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (5.6) years, 356 (29.0%) identified as Black race, 555 (45.2%) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 445 (36.3%) preferred the Spanish language. Response rates were 43.5% for wave 1 (652 of 1500 individuals sampled) and 39.5% for wave 2 (575 of 1456 individuals sampled). Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be White, non-Hispanic, and vaccinated per EHR. Overall, 76.8% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.2%) reported 1 or more COVID-19 vaccinations; Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents had the highest weighted proportion of respondents with 1 or more vaccination. Weighted estimates of somewhat or strongly agreeing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe decreased from wave 1 to 2 for respondents who reported 1 or more vaccinations (76% vs 50%; χ21 = 7.8; P < .001), non-Hispanic White respondents (72% vs 43%; χ21 = 5.4; P = .02), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents (76% vs 53%; χ21 = 22.8; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceDecreasing confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in a large, diverse pregnant and recently pregnant insured population is a public health concern.
| S-EPMC11002697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccines are effective interventions that can reduce the high burden of diseases globally. However, public vaccine hesitancy is a pressing problem for public health authorities. With the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, little information is available on the public acceptability and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccines in Jordan. This study aimed to investigate the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines and its predictors in addition to the attitudes towards these vaccines among public in Jordan. An online, cross-sectional, and self-administered questionnaire was instrumentalized to survey adult participants from Jordan on the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression analysis was used to find the predictors of COVID-19 vaccines' acceptability. A total of 3,100 participants completed the survey. The public acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines was fairly low (37.4%) in Jordan. Males (OR = 2.488, 95CI% = 1.834-3.375, p < .001) and those who took the seasonal influenza vaccine (OR = 2.036, 95CI% = 1.306-3.174, p = .002) were more likely to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Similarly, participants who believed that vaccines are generally safe (OR = 9.258, 95CI% = 6.020-14.237, p < .001) and those who were willing to pay for vaccines (OR = 19.223, 95CI% = 13.665-27.042, p < .001), once available, were more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines. However, those above 35 years old (OR = 0.376, 95CI% = 0.233-0.607, p < .001) and employed participants (OR = 0.542, 95CI% = 0.405-0.725, p < .001) were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, participants who believed that there was a conspiracy behind COVID-19 (OR = 0.502, 95CI% = 0.356-0.709, p < .001) and those who do not trust any source of information on COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 0.271, 95CI% = 0.183-0.400, p < .001), were less likely to have acceptance towards them. The most trusted sources of information on COVID-19 vaccines were healthcare providers. Systematic interventions are required by public health authorities to reduce the levels of vaccines' hesitancy and improve their acceptance. We believe these results and specifically the low rate of acceptability is alarming to Jordanian health authorities and should stir further studies on the root causes and the need of awareness campaigns. These interventions should take the form of reviving the trust in national health authorities and structured awareness campaigns that offer transparent information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and the technology that was utilized in their production.
| S-EPMC8064595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Two-sided messages that include two perspectives (i.e., risks and benefits) are more effective than one-sided messages that convey only one perspective (usually only the benefits). Refutational two-sided messages are effective for communicating risks regarding vaccines. To examine the effectiveness of refutational two-sided messages in risk communication regarding novel vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, we conducted the randomized controlled study based on a 3 × 3 × 2 mixed design (Intervention 1: vaccines against subcutaneous influenza, "novel severe infectious disease," or intranasal influenza; intervention 2: one-sided, non-refutational two-sided, or refutational two-sided messages; two questionnaires) using a Japanese online panel. Participants completed questionnaires before and after receiving an attack message (negative information). We evaluated the impact of attack messages on the willingness to be vaccinated, and the anticipated regret of inaction (ARI). Among 1,184 participants, there was a significant difference in the willingness to be vaccinated among the message groups (p < 0.01). After receiving the attack message, willingness to be vaccinated decreased in the one-sided message group and increased in the non-refutational two-sided and refutational two-sided message groups. Additionally, ARI in the refutational two-sided message groups was significantly higher than in the one-sided groups (p = 0.03). In conclusion, two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in terms of willingness to be vaccinated. Furthermore, the high ARI in the refutational two-sided message group indicated that refutational two-sided messages were more effective than one-sided messages for communicating the risks of vaccines, especially those against emerging infectious diseases.
| S-EPMC8873109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: To achieve herd immunity, the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine by the population, especially healthcare professionals, plays a key role. The objective of the present paper is to address the differences in attitudes among Spanish healthcare professionals compared with the general population regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This cross-sectional study included data from 2,136 adults (n = 664 healthcare professionals) from an online survey conducted from May 6 to June 9, 2021. The Vaccination attitudes examination scale was used to measure the negative attitudes toward vaccines. Four subscales: mistrust of vaccine benefit, worries about the unforeseen future effect, concerns about commercial profiteering, and preference for natural immunity were calculated. Generalized linear mixed models were conducted to study these associations. Results: Between 10.2 and 22.6% of the subjects showed high levels of negative attitudes toward vaccines. However, only 1.5% of our sample (2.1% among healthcare professionals) refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine when it was offered because they chose otherwise. Retired people showed the lowest concerns and the highest trust in vaccines. No statistically significant effects were found between working in a healthcare field and having higher positive attitudes toward vaccines. Conclusion: Low levels of rejection against the COVID-19 vaccine were identified in the present sample. However, despite being at a higher risk, health care professionals did not show higher positive attitudes toward vaccines. Furthermore, refusal percentage to vaccination was higher among healthcare professionals compared with non-healthcare professionals. Developing a strategy to increase positive attitudes against the COVID-19 vaccine should be an objective for public health policy.
| S-EPMC8531478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few analyses of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes also cover routine vaccines or focus on parents. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed US adults in September 2022, immediately following the authorization of updated bivalent COVID-19 boosters for adults but before their authorization for children. The vaccine attitudes of parents were compared to other adults. Fewer parents were up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccines than other adults (54% vs. 67%), even after adjusting for age, education, and race/ethnicity (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.58; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.45-0.76). More parents had concerns about COVID-19 vaccines' safety in children (67% vs. 58%; aOR: 1.59; 95%CI: 1.23-2.06) and vaccine ingredients (52% vs. 45%; aOR: 1.41; 95%CI: 1.09-1.81), and more parents perceived COVID-19 in children to be no worse than a cold or the flu (51% vs. 38%; aOR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.22-2.01). Fewer parents supported COVID-19 vaccine school requirements (52% vs. 57%; aOR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.58-0.97) and perceived high vaccine coverage among their friends (51% vs. 61%; aOR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.46-0.78). However, three-quarters of parents intended their child to receive all routinely recommended vaccines, whereas only half of adults intended to receive all routinely recommended vaccines themselves. To improve parental informed vaccine decision-making, public health must ensure pediatric providers have updated resources to support their discussions of vaccine risks and benefits with their patients' parents.
| S-EPMC10748314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveVaccination is one of the most important measures that the world is relying on to end the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of vaccines have been authorized; however, there are several differences in the available vaccines which may lead to differences in public hesitancy levels toward each vaccine. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the young Jordanian population's acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, their knowledge, and attitudes toward different vaccine types, and to explore the variables that could influence their preferences.Material and methodsAn online questionnaire was distributed via Jordanian multipurpose Facebook groups. COVID-19 knowledge, and practice scores were calculated, in addition to general and specific COVID-19 vaccine knowledge scores. Repeated measures analysis was conducted to investigate the association between the participants' knowledge about each vaccine and their willingness to take it. Quantile regressions were conducted to determine the predictors of the participants' willingness to take each vaccine.ResultsA total of 1897 participants completed the survey. One fifth of the participants (19.9%) were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The acceptance of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the knowledge about it were significantly different from all the other vaccines. Predictors of acceptance of the different vaccines were sex, estimation of the severity of the disease, COVID-19 knowledge score, practice score, and specific vaccine knowledge score.ConclusionThe young Jordanian adults had limited acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Differences in the participants' acceptance of different vaccines were observed and specific vaccine knowledge was a significant predictor of acceptance of the vaccine.
| S-EPMC8418917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy is a major threat to the success of COVID-19 vaccination programs. The present cross-sectional online survey of adult Poles (n = 1020) expressing a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was conducted between February and March 2021 and aimed to assess (i) the general trust in different types of vaccines, (ii) the level of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines already in use in Poland (BNT162b2 by BioNTech/Pfizer, mRNA-1273 by Moderna and AZD1222 by Oxford/AstraZeneca) as well as eight vaccines approved outside European Union (EU) or in advanced stages of clinical trials, (iii) level of fear of vaccination against COVID-19, and (iv) main sources of information on COVID-19 vaccination. Among all major vaccine technology, the highest level of trust was observed for the mRNA platform, with a considerable number of surveyed (>20%) not aware of the existence of vaccines produced using the traditional approach (inactivated and live attenuated vaccines). The age of participants was the main factor differentiating the level of trust in a particular vaccine type. Both BNT162b and mRNA-1273 received a high level of acceptance, contrary to AZD1222. From eight vaccines unauthorized in the EU at the moment of study, the CVnCoV (mRNA; CureVac) was met with the highest level of trust, followed by Ad26.COV2.S (vector; Janssen/Johnson&Johnson) and NVX-CoV2373 (protein; Novavax). Sputnik V (vector; Gamaleya Research Institute) was decidedly the least trusted vaccine. The median level of fear (measured by the 10-point Likert-type scale) in the studied group was 4.0, mostly related to the risk of serious allergic reactions, other severe adverse events and unknown long-term effects of vaccination. Female, individuals with a lower level of education and those not seeking any information on the COVID-19 vaccines revealed a higher fear of vaccination. Experts' materials were the major source of information on COVID-19 vaccines in the studied group. The study shows the level of trust in COVID-19 vaccines can vary much across the producers while the mRNA vaccines are received with a high level of acceptance. It also emphasizes the need for effective and continuous science communication when fighting the pandemic as it may be an ideal time to increase the general awareness of vaccines.
| S-EPMC8069794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence can enable real-time analysis of public attitudes, and their demographic determinants, from social media and linked Web platforms. This analysis offers the opportunity to track changing public sentiments and develop proactive two-way communication strategies. In the context of Covid-19, an iterative learning cycle can help maximize vaccine uptake across demographic communities by identifying and addressing unforeseen areas of public concern. Summary As vaccines against Covid-19 are rolled out, there is a pressing need to better understand and monitor public sentiments and address the concerns of vaccine sceptics. This urgency has been exacerbated by the current wave of the global pandemic and growing pressures on health services.1 The Royal Society reviewed the behavioral aspects of vaccine uptake and misinformation and identified the need for further research into five factors: confidence in the vaccines’ efficacy and safety; complacency; convenience; sociodemographic variation; and sources of information.2 The survey advocated the need for public dialogue around vaccine concerns and hesitancy3 to replace the current passive communication strategies that tend to focus narrowly on “infodemic” challenges,2 because genuine knowledge voids are being filled by misinformation. Artificial intelligence (AI) can enable real-time analysis of public attitudes, and their demographic determinants, from social media and linked Web platforms. This analysis offers the opportunity to track changing public sentiments and develop proactive two-way communication strategies. In particular, an iterative learning cycle can help identify unforeseen areas of public concern as well as potential barriers and facilitators for required interventions, prior to their implementation, to maximize vaccine uptake across demographic communities.
| S-EPMC7864479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn March 2020, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) pandemic was spreading across the globe, many countries have implemented unprecedented lockdown measures. But how populations did react to these measures? We examined the case of France. Our aims were threefold: assessing some aspects of their impact on French's daily living conditions; investigating their attitudes toward the lockdown; investigating the factors associated with these attitudes.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was carried out 10 days after the nationwide lockdown (from March 27th to March 29th 2020), among a representative sample of the mainland French population aged 18 and over. A quota sampling method was applied to achieve a sample of 1012 respondents. We used a cluster analysis to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and logistic regressions to investigated which factors were associated to these profiles.ResultsAfter 10 days of lockdown, there were already significant consequences regarding respondents' living conditions and mental health. Most respondents supported the current lockdown. However, it appeared as a stopgap measure due to a lack of alternatives, and a large majority acknowledged its heavy drawbacks. We found three contrasted attitudinal profiles: full support (38%), strong but critical support (31%), limited support (31%). Regarding respondents' SES, low-income and low-education respondents were more likely to display critical or limited support to the lockdown, as well as those who reported deteriorated living conditions or psychological distress.ConclusionsIn France, the large public support to the lockdown was fragile. First, it was a critical consensus anchored in current controversies and recent social struggles. Second, it was weaker among people with a lows SES, especially since the lockdown have exacerbated preexisting social inequalities.
| S-EPMC7746918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) refers to the nonmedical use of prescription or recreational drugs to enhance cognitive performance. Several concerns about PCE have been raised in the public. The aim of the present study was to investigate students' attitudes toward PCE. Students at three Swiss universities were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey. Of the 29,282 students who were contacted, 3,056 participated. Of these students, 22% indicated that they had used prescription drugs (12%) or recreational substances including alcohol (14%) at least once for PCE. The use of prescription drugs or recreational substances including alcohol prior to the last exam was reported by 16%. Users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers were more likely to consider PCE fair (24%) compared with nonusers (11%). Only a minority of the participants agreed with the nonmedical use of prescription drugs by fellow students when assuming weak (7%) or hypothetically strong efficacy and availability to everyone (14%). Two-thirds (68%) considered performance that is obtained with PCE less worthy of recognition. Additionally, 80% disagreed that PCE is acceptable in a competitive environment. More than half (64%) agreed that PCE in academia is similar to doping in sports. Nearly half (48%) claimed that unregulated access to pharmacological cognitive enhancers increases the pressure to engage in PCE and educational inequality (55%). In conclusion, Swiss students' main concerns regarding PCE were related to coercion and fairness. As expected, these concerns were more prevalent among nonusers than among users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers. More balanced information on PCE should be shared with students, and future monitoring of PCE is recommended.
| S-EPMC4675521 | biostudies-literature