42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Deliberation, Dissent, and Distrust: Understanding Distinct Drivers of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite the availability of safe and efficacious coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, a significant proportion of the American public remains unvaccinated and does not appear to be immediately interested in receiving the vaccine.

          Methods

          In this study, we analyzed data from the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a biweekly cross-sectional survey of US households. We estimated the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy across states and nationally and assessed the predictors of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rejection. In addition, we examined the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy, grouped into thematic categories.

          Results

          A total of 459 235 participants were surveyed from 6 January to 29 March 2021. While vaccine uptake increased from 7.7% to 47%, vaccine hesitancy rates remained relatively fixed: overall, 10.2% reported that they would probably not get a vaccine and 8.2% that they would definitely not get a vaccine. Income, education, and state political leaning strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. However, while both female sex and black race were factors predicting hesitancy, among those who were hesitant, these same characteristics predicted vaccine reluctance rather than rejection. Those who expressed reluctance invoked mostly “deliberative” reasons, while those who rejected the vaccine were also likely to invoke reasons of “dissent” or “distrust.”

          Conclusions

          Vaccine hesitancy comprises a sizable proportion of the population and is large enough to threaten achieving herd immunity. Distinct subgroups of hesitancy have distinctive sociodemographic associations as well as cognitive and affective predilections. Segmented public health solutions are needed to target interventions and optimize vaccine uptake.

          Abstract

          Distinct drivers of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine hesitancy reflect differences in intensity, nature, and underlying reasons, as well as variation among sociodemographic groups and across time. Segmented public health solutions are needed to target interventions and optimize vaccine uptake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

            The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

              The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Infect Dis
                Clin Infect Dis
                cid
                Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1058-4838
                1537-6591
                16 July 2021
                16 July 2021
                : ciab633
                Affiliations
                Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis , St Louis, Missouri, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: K. H. Tram, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, 660 S Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8121, St Louis, MO, 63110 ( ktram@ 123456uw.edu ).
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1129-7674
                Article
                ciab633
                10.1093/cid/ciab633
                8406882
                34272559
                0019543b-7d1f-4ec6-ac91-4019f38f167a
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

                This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                : 11 May 2021
                : 12 July 2021
                : 18 August 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Categories
                Major Article
                AcademicSubjects/MED00290
                Custom metadata
                PAP
                corrected-proof

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                covid-19,covid-19 vaccine,vaccine hesitancy
                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                covid-19, covid-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy

                Comments

                Comment on this article