28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Systematic Review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      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

          Vaccine hesitancy in the US throughout the pandemic has revealed inconsistent results. This systematic review has compared COVID-19 vaccine uptake across US and investigated predictors of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance across different groups. A search of PUBMED database was conducted till 17th July, 2021. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were screened and 65 studies were selected for a quantitative analysis. The overall vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 12 to 91.4%, the willingness of studies using the 10-point scale ranged from 3.58 to 5.12. Increased unwillingness toward COVID-19 vaccine and Black/African Americans were found to be correlated. Sex, race, age, education level, and income status were identified as determining factors of having a low or high COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A change in vaccine acceptance in the US population was observed in two studies, an increase of 10.8 and 7.4%, respectively, between 2020 and 2021. Our results confirm that hesitancy exists in the US population, highest in Black/African Americans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and low in the male sex. It is imperative for regulatory bodies to acknowledge these statistics and consequently, exert efforts to mitigate the burden of unvaccinated individuals and revise vaccine delivery plans, according to different vulnerable subgroups, across the country.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            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

              Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US

              Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to adversely affect the U.S., which leads globally in total cases and deaths. As COVID-19 vaccines are under development, public health officials and policymakers need to create strategic vaccine-acceptance messaging to effectively control the pandemic and prevent thousands of additional deaths. Methods Using an online platform, we surveyed the U.S. adult population in May 2020 to understand risk perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic, acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine, and trust in sources of information. These factors were compared across basic demographics. Findings Of the 672 participants surveyed, 450 (67%) said they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine if it is recommended for them. Males (72%) compared to females, older adults (≥55 years; 78%) compared to younger adults, Asians (81%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups, and college and/or graduate degree holders (75%) compared to people with less than a college degree were more likely to accept the vaccine. When comparing reported influenza vaccine uptake to reported acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine: 1) participants who did not complete high school had a very low influenza vaccine uptake (10%), while 60% of the same group said they would accept the COVID-19 vaccine; 2) unemployed participants reported lower influenza uptake and lower COVID-19 vaccine acceptance when compared to those employed or retired; and, 3) Black Americans reported lower influenza vaccine uptake and lower COVID-19 vaccine acceptance than all other racial groups reported in our study. Lastly, we identified geographic differences with Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regions 2 (New York) and 5 (Chicago) reporting less than 50 percent COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Interpretation Although our study found a 67% acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine, there were noticeable demographic and geographical disparities in vaccine acceptance. Before a COVID-19 vaccine is introduced to the U.S., public health officials and policymakers must prioritize effective COVID-19 vaccine-acceptance messaging for all Americans, especially those who are most vulnerable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                23 November 2021
                2021
                23 November 2021
                : 9
                : 770985
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences , Karachi, Pakistan
                [2] 2Department of Internal Medicine, Dow University Ojha Hospital , Karachi, Pakistan
                [3] 3Department of General Surgery, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College , Karachi, Pakistan
                [4] 4Department of Internal Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation , Doha, Qatar
                [5] 5Department of Public Health, Dilla University , Dilla, Ethiopia
                [6] 6Department of Community Medicine, Kabir Medical College , Peshawar, Pakistan
                [7] 7Institute of Allied Health Sciences, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University , Tainan, Taiwan
                [8] 8Department of Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University , Jönköping, Sweden
                Author notes

                Edited by: Bijaya Kumar Padhi, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), India

                Reviewed by: Kapil Goel, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), India; Krushna Chandra Sahoo, Regional Medical Research Center (ICMR), India

                *Correspondence: Unaiza Naeem unaizanaeem.gs@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Infectious Diseases - Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2021.770985
                8650625
                34888288
                4dd84eeb-a28d-4081-87f2-b2adfb5ea935
                Copyright © 2021 Yasmin, Najeeb, Moeed, Naeem, Asghar, Chughtai, Yousaf, Seboka, Ullah, Lin and Pakpour.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 05 September 2021
                : 01 November 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 89, Pages: 17, Words: 9454
                Categories
                Public Health
                Systematic Review

                covid-19 vaccines,severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (sars-cov-2),vaccine hesitancy,vaccine acceptance,united states,intent to vaccinate

                Comments

                Comment on this article