4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Predictors of uncertainty and unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine: An observational study of 22,139 fully vaccinated adults in the UK

      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

          The continued success of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK will depend on widespread uptake of booster vaccines. However, there is evidence of hesitancy and unwillingness to receive the booster vaccine, even in fully vaccinated adults. Identifying factors associated with COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions specifically in this population is therefore critical.

          Methods

          We used data from 22,139 fully vaccinated adults who took part in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. Multinomial logistic regression examined predictors of uncertainty and unwillingness (versus willingness) to receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine (measured 22 November 2021 to 6 December 2021), including (i) socio-demographic factors, (ii) COVID-19 related factors (e.g., having been infected with COVID-19), and (iii) initial intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the four months following the announcement in the UK that the vaccines had been approved (2 December 2020 to 31 March 2021).

          Findings

          4% of the sample reported that they were uncertain about receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccine, and a further 4% unwilling. Initial uncertainty and unwillingness to accept the first COVID-19 vaccine in 2020-21 were each associated with over five times the risk of being uncertain about and unwilling to accept a booster vaccine. Healthy adults (those without a pre-existing physical health condition) were also more likely to be uncertain or unwilling to receive a booster vaccine. In addition, low levels of current stress about catching or becoming seriously ill from COVID-19, consistently low compliance with COVID-19 government guidelines during periods of strict restrictions (e.g., lockdowns), lower levels of educational qualification, lower socio-economic position, and age below 45 years were all associated with uncertainty and unwillingness.

          Interpretation

          Our findings highlight that there are a range of factors that predict booster intentions, with the strongest predictor being previous uncertainty and unwillingness. Two other concerning patterns also emerged from our results. First, administration of booster vaccinations may increase social inequalities in experiences of COVID-19 as adults from lower socio-economic backgrounds are also most likely to be uncertain or unwilling to accept a booster vaccine as well as most likely to be seriously affected by the virus. Second, some of those most likely to spread COVID-19 (i.e., those with poor compliance with guidelines) are most likely to be uncertain and unwilling. Public health messaging should be tailored specifically to these groups.

          Funding

          The Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z and 205407/Z/16/Z].

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant

            Background The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear. Methods We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike ( S ) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients’ vaccination status. Results Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant. Conclusions Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine

              Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 61.4% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer’s advice to do so.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Reg Health Eur
                Lancet Reg Health Eur
                The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2666-7762
                3 February 2022
                March 2022
                3 February 2022
                : 14
                : 100317
                Affiliations
                [0001]Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
                Article
                S2666-7762(22)00010-2 100317
                10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100317
                8811487
                35132400
                2bd5015d-9a8b-400f-958e-b28eabf21fcb
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                covid-19,booster vaccine,vaccine refusal,vaccine hesitancy

                Comments

                Comment on this article