Search

Introduction: Protecting non-native ethnic minority groups against cocirculation of influenza and COVID-19 is crucial, and vaccination could be a viable option. Smartphone-based chatbots offer promising opportunities for improving vaccine knowledge and addressing barriers encountered by ethnic minorities. This trial aims to evaluate the effects of smartphone-based chatbot intervention on influenza and COVID-19 vaccine uptake, intention to receive vaccination and vaccine hesitancy among South Asian ethnic minorities in Hong Kong., Method and Analysis: An assessor-blinded, cluster-randomised, waitlist-controlled trial will be conducted. This study consists of two phases. In phase I, a smartphone-based chatbot intervention will be developed, including designing a simple chatbot called 'Ali' to deliver prewritten educational text messages and vaccination reminders as well as respond to users' questions, and on-demand option for communication with research assistants. An expert panel will be invited to review the designed chatbot, and pilot testing will be performed. In phase II, a total of 612 South Asians will be recruited from each of the six participating non-governmental community centres or ethnic minority associations. They will be randomly allocated to intervention (n=306) or waitlist control group (n=306). The intervention group will receive in-app notifications related to the education text messages and vaccination reminders via the smartphone-based chatbot twice a week for two weeks. The waitlist control group will receive usual care only. Evaluation will include vaccination uptake, intention to receive vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Assessments will take place at baseline (T0), immediately postintervention (T1) and 3-month postintervention (T2)., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No.: 2021.688). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and through local or interventional conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2200061503., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To illustrate an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach to codesign the COMMUNICATE films that support parental decision-making about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for their teenagers., Design: Codesign study., Setting: Localities covered by two immunisation teams in London and the south-west of England., Methods: The intervention planning phase involved combining evidence from a literature review with qualitative interview data to identify barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccine uptake, as well as design features that should be incorporated within the COMMUNICATE films. The intervention development phase involved identifying guiding principles for the COMMUNICATE films, mapping behaviour change techniques onto the behaviour change wheel and codesigning the COMMUNICATE films. Feedback from users informed modifications to maximise acceptability and feasibility and to support behaviour change., Results: The primary and secondary evidence highlighted important content to include within the COMMUNICATE films: emphasise the benefits of the HPV vaccine, provide transparent information about the safety profile and side effects and emphasise the universality and commonality of HPV infection. A series of scripts were used to guide 4 film shoots to create the content in multiple community languages with 16 participants, including vaccine-hesitant, ethnically diverse parents and professionals. Overall, participants were positive about the films. Potential messengers and ways the films could be distributed, identified by parents, include local social media networks or text messages from general practices. The need for information about the HPV vaccine to be shared by schools ahead of consent being sought was also raised., Conclusions: By using an integrated approach to intervention development, this study has begun to address the need for an intervention to support vaccine-hesitant, ethnically diverse parents' decision-making about the HPV vaccination programme. A future study to codesign, implement and evaluate a communication strategy for the COMMUNICATE films is planned., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization and was, until December 2022, chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization committee. The other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Inequities in COVID-19 infection and vaccine uptake among historically marginalised racial and ethnic groups in the USA persist. Individuals with rheumatic conditions, especially those who are immunocompromised, are especially vulnerable to severe infection, with significant racialised inequities in infection outcomes and in vaccine uptake. Structural racism, historical injustices and misinformation engender racial and ethnic inequities in vaccine uptake. The Popular Opinion Lleader (POL) model, a community-based intervention that trains trusted community leaders to disseminate health information to their social network members (eg, friends, family and neighbours), has been shown to reduce stigma and improve care-seeking behaviours., Methods and Analysis: This is a community-based cluster randomised controlled trial led by a team of community and academic partners to compare the efficacy of training POLs with rheumatic or musculoskeletal conditions using a curriculum embedded with a racial justice vs a biomedical framework to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reduce vaccine hesitancy. This trial began recruitment in February 2024 in Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois, USA. Eligible POLs are English-speaking adults who identify as Black and/or of African descent, have a diagnosis of a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and have received >=1 COVID-19 vaccine after 31 August 2022. POLs will be randomised to a 6-module virtual educational training; the COVID-19 and vaccine-related content will be the same for both groups however the framing for arm 1 will be with a racial justice lens and for arm 2, a biomedical preventative care-focused lens. Following the training, POLs will disseminate the information they learned to 12-16 social network members who have not received the most recent COVID-19 vaccine, over 4 weeks. The trial's primary outcome is social network member COVID-19 vaccine uptake, which will be compared between intervention arms., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial has ethical approval in the USA. This has been approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board (IRB, 2023P000686), the Northwestern University IRB (STU00219053), the Boston University/Boston Medical Center IRB (H-43857) and the Boston Children's Hospital IRB (P00045404). Results will be published in a publicly accessible peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: NCT05822219., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RG-R receives research support from her institution (Northwestern), from the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the American College of Rheumatology, The Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Alabama and the Lupus Research Alliance (LuCIN). She receives consulting fees from the State University of New York, Syracuse, Merck, Biogen, Exagen Diagnostics, Duke University, Ampel Solutions, Clarivate, Bristol Myers Squibb and Cabaletta. She received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Georgetown University, and she previously served as the Chair of the COIN Committee for the American College of Rheumatology. CF receives research support to her institution from the NIH/NIAMS, the Arthritis Foundation and the BMS Foundation. She has served as a consultant on grants to the American College of Rheumatology, Lupus Foundation of America and the University of Alabama and has consulted for Bain Capital, LP, Harvard Pilgrim and OM1. CF received honoraria for presentations at Northwestern University and the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She is the Lupus Science & Medicine Associate Editor and is a former Associate Editor for ACR Open Rheumatology. CF serves on the AC&R Editorial Board, the AF DEI Task Force, the ACR DEI Committee, and LFA Medical and Scientific Advisory Board. MC receives research support from the NIH, Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, Honoria at the Roxbury YMCA and meeting/travel support from the Lupus Research Alliance. JW receives support from Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, and Lupus Research Alliance. She receives consulting fees from CVS Pharmacy, honoraria from the Lupus Foundation of America and meeting/travel support from RILITE Foundation. JW serves on the Lupus Foundation of America–Medical Scientific Advisory Council, NIH-NIAMS P30 VERITY Research Community External Advisory Board, Project CHANGE by Lupus Therapeutics steering committee, American College of Rheumatology Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Lupus Nephritis Guideline Development Group and American College of Rheumatology Research and Publications Subcommittee (October 2020-October 2023). AD, BO, DE, EL, GS, LNM, MSon, MC-B, MJ-J, MY, NP, TR and HM receive support from the NIH (NIAMS R01 AR 080089). All other authors have no relevant financial disclosures or conflict of interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This study aims to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy (VH) among general practioners (GPs) and paediatricians. We aim to analyse how and when the healthcare workers (HCWs) developed vaccine-hesitant views and how they transfer these to patients., Design and Setting: Semistructured interviews with vaccine-hesitant GPs and paediatricians were conducted in Austria and Germany using an explorative qualitative research design., Participants: We contacted 41 physicians through letters and emails and 10 agreed to participate, five were male and five female., Data Collection and Analysis: Ten interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The material was analysed inductively following a grounded theory approach with open coding using the software atlas.ti., Results: Key themes that were identified were education and career path, understanding of medicine and medical profession, experiences with vaccines, doctor-patient interactions and continuous education activities and the link to VH. GPs and paediatricians' vaccine-hesitant attitudes developed during their medical training and, in particular, during extracurricular training in homeopathy, which most of the participants completed. Most participants work in private practices rather than with contracts with social insurance because they are not satisfied with the health system. Furthermore, they are critical of biomedicine. Most of the interview partners do not consider themselves antivaccination, but are sceptical towards vaccines and especially point out the side effects. Most do not vaccinate in their practices and some do only occasionally. Their vaccine-hesitant views are often fostered through respective online communities of vaccine-hesitant HCWs., Conclusions: More studies on a connection between complementary medicine and vaccine-hesitant views of HCWs are needed. Education about vaccines and infectious diseases among healthworkers must increase especially tailored towards the use of internet and social media. Physicians should be made aware that through time and empathy towards their patients they could have a positive impact on undecided patients and parents regarding vaccine decisions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to identify concerns and stimuli regarding COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and to compare the findings by occupation., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 April and 30 June 2021 in four metropolitan areas of China. A total of 20 863 participants completed questionnaires, 20 767 of which were eligible for analysis. We used ordered logistic regression to assess the association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy according to occupation., Results: Farmers were mainly concerned about the quality of vaccines (adjusted OR (aOR): 3.18, 95% CI (CI): 1.83 to 5.54). Among civil servants, media publicity reduced hesitancy (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.92). Among medical staff, concerns about a short duration of protective effects increased hesitancy (aOR: 8.31, 95% CI: 2.03 to 33.99). For most occupations, concerns about side effects, poor protective effects and health status increased hesitancy. In contrast, protecting oneself and protecting others acted as a stimulus to decrease hesitancy. Interestingly, 'people around me have been vaccinated' was associated with higher vaccination hesitancy among farmers (aOR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.20 to 4.00)., Conclusion: The association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy varied by occupation. The characteristics and concerns of specific target audiences should be considered when designing informational campaigns to promote vaccination against COVID-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To identify, describe and map the research tools used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)., Design: Scoping review., Methods: In March 2022, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Source Nursing, Africa Wide and APA PsychInfo for peer-reviewed literature in English related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in SSA. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews to guide evidence gathering and as a template to present the evidence retrieval process., Results: In the studies selected for review (n=72), several measurement tools were used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal. These measurements were willingness and intent to vaccinate from the perspectives of the general population, special population groups such as mothers, students and staff in academic institutions and healthcare workers and uptake as a proxy for measuring assumed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination were cost and affordability, convenience, distance and time to travel or time waiting for a vaccine and (dis)comfort. Although all studies measured COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal, relatively few studies (n=16, 22.2%) included explicit measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination., Conclusions: Based on the gaps identified in the scoping review, we propose that future research on determinants of COVID-19 vaccination in SSA should further prioritise the inclusion of access-related variables. We recommend the development and use of standardised research tools that can operationalise, measure and disentangle the complex determinants of vaccine uptake in future studies throughout SSA and other low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: WHO declared vaccine hesitancy as a global public health threat in 2019. Since even a slight reduction in vaccine coverage rates can lead to a decrease in herd immunity, it is imperative to explore the underlying factors affecting vaccine hesitancy. This qualitative study protocol aims to explore determinant factors that influence vaccine hesitancy in Iran from the parent's perspective., Methods and Analysis: Descriptive-Interpretive Qualitative research will be conducted to gain an insight into vaccine hesitancy in the west of Tehran province in Iran. Participants in the study will be recruited from vaccine-hesitant parents of children under 5 years' old who will be recognised as being hesitant to extract from the national health information system. The semistructured interviews and in-depth questions will be performed both face-to-face in an open space such as a park near their homes and via video call because of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing. Interviews will be conducted by a trained qualitative person. Transcribed data will be analysed through thematic analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the research ethics committee at the Iran University of Medical Sciences (Approval ID #IR.IUMS.REC.1399.273). The results of the study are expected to be presented by the end of 2022 year. A variety of dissemination methods will be employed to communicate research findings, including presentations at conferences and peer-reviewed publications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) misinformation has been reported globally and locally. This has the potential to influence public risk perception and reduce the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. This study aims to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in Buikwe district. The study will also pilot a social mobilisation intervention using community influencers and determine its effect on COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy., Methods and Analysis: The study will be conducted using a quasi-experimental study design, in which two villages will be assigned to the intervention arm and two villages assigned controls. A mixed-methods technique employing both quantitative and qualitative methods will be employed. Data will be collected from healthy men and women aged 18 years and older who reside in the selected villages. The study will be implemented in three phases. First, a baseline study of 12 in-depth interviews with key informants and 6 focus group discussions and a household survey among 632 participants will be done. Second, an intervention employing dialogue-based social mobilisation approach using 10-man community groups per village will be developed and implemented. These will be trained and facilitated to educate and sensitise their communities about COVID-19. Third, an end-line household survey done after 6-months of intervention implementation in the four villages to assess the effect of the intervention on COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Post-intervention qualitative evaluation will be done after the endline quantitative assessment. Preliminary analysis of the endline quantitative analysis will inform any revisions of the discussion guides. Qualitative data collected will be analysed using thematic content analysis while quantitative data will be analysed using χ 2 tests or logistic regression, by intention-to-treat analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was reviewed for ethics and approved by the Makerere University School of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, reference number MakSHSREC-2020-45 and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology, reference number HS1140ES. Study finding shall be presented to the district and national COVID-19 task force and at scientific gatherings and published in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: PACTR202102846261362., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the vaccines' acceptance level and to find the factors influencing pregnant women's vaccination decisions, with the goal of assisting in the development of interventions and promoting more research in this area., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed., Eligibility Criteria: Studies providing any kind of quantitative assessment of overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among pregnant women in any country or region across the globe., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup (sensitivity) analysis was performed to determine the overall COVID-19 vaccine acceptance level to understand the sources of substantial heterogeneity., Results: Out of the 375 studies identified, 17 studies from four continents assessing 25 147 participants (pregnant women) were included in this study. Among the participants, only 49% (95% CI 42% to 56%, p<0.001) had COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. High-income countries (47%; 95% CI 38% to 55%, p<0.001), participants with fewer than 12 years of education (38%; 95% CI 19% to 58%, p<0.001) and multiparous women (48%; 95% CI 31% to 66%, p<0.001) had lower COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Overall heterogeneity was high (I 2 ≥98%), and publication bias was present (p<0.001). A very weak positive correlation between COVID-19 knowledge and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was observed (r=0.164; 95% CI -0.946 to 0.972; p=0.8359)., Conclusion: Overall, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women was low across the studies and considerably low among some specific subgroups of participants. These research findings have implications for the development of effective interventions that could increase the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance level among pregnant women to attain herd immunity., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021277754., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: While the development of vaccines against the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) brought hope of establishing herd immunity and ending the global pandemic, vaccine hesitancy can hinder the progress towards herd immunity. In this study, by analysing the data collected when citizens undergo public health restrictions due to the pandemic, we assess the determinants of vaccine hesitancy, reasons for hesitation and potential effectiveness of vaccine passports used to relax public health restrictions on mitigating vaccine hesitancy., Design: Cross-sectional study, longitudinal study and conjoint experimental design., Setting: An online survey conducted in Japan in July 2021., Participants: A demographically representative sample of 5000 Japanese adults aged 20-74., Primary Outcome Measures: COVID-19 vaccination intention RESULTS: We found that about 30% of respondents did not intend to get vaccinated or had not yet decided, with major reasons for vaccine hesitancy relating to concerns about the safety and side effects of the vaccine. In line with previous findings, younger age, lower socioeconomic status, and psychological and behavioural factors such as weaker COVID-19 fear were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Easing of public health restrictions such as travel, wearing face masks and dining out at night was associated with an increase in vaccine acceptance by 4%-10%. Moreover, we found that more than 90% of respondents who intended to get vaccinated actually received it while smaller proportions among those undecided and unwilling to get vaccinated did so., Conclusion: With a major concern about vaccine safety and side effects, interventions to mitigate against these may help to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, when citizens are imposed with restrictions, vaccine passports that increase their freedom may be helpful to increase vaccination rates., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Data on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is limited in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia., Design: A community-based concurrent mixed-method study., Setting: In a community setting., Participants: Adult residents (n=422) of Akaki Kality subcity who were recruited by a two stage sampling technique and 24 adults who were selected purposively were included for the quantitative and qualitative part of the study respectively., Outcome Measures: Data were collected by face-to-face interview using a semistructured questionnaire. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified by multivariable binary logistic regression model., Results: One out five (19.1%, 95% CI 15.3% to 24.6%) participants were not willing to get vaccinated. In the multivariable analysis, vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with being female (aOR=1.97; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.89), having negative attitude towards COVID-19 and its preventive measures (aOR=1.75; 95% CI 1.08 to 3.02), and primary information source being social media (internet) (aOR=3.59; 95% CI 1.75 to 7.37). Study participants have predominantly stated that they did not have enough information about the vaccine, feared it would not be effective or have too many side effects, and reflected their uncertainty towards the quality of the vaccine., Conclusions: A considerable proportion of the people in Addis Ababa have concerns on COVID-19 vaccines and unwilling to accept them. This was due to the misconceptions, negative attitudes and use of social media as their primary source of information. Providing the community with health education and consistent efforts to enhance the prevention measures are important, particularly using different medias including social media., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Care homes have experienced a high number of COVID-19 outbreaks, and it is therefore important for care home employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there is high vaccine hesitancy among this group. We aimed to understand barriers and facilitators to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as views on potential mandatory vaccination policies., Design: Semi-structured interviews., Setting: Care home employees in North West England. Interviews conducted in April 2021., Participants: 10 care home employees (aged 25-61 years) in the North West, who had been invited to have, but not received the COVID-19 vaccine., Results: We analysed the interviews using a framework analysis. Our analysis identified eight themes: perceived risk of COVID-19, effectiveness of the vaccine, concerns about the vaccine, mistrust in authorities, facilitators to getting the vaccine, views on mandatory vaccinations, negative experiences of care work during the COVID-19 pandemic, and communication challenges., Conclusions: Making COVID-19 vaccination a condition of deployment may not result in increased willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccination, with most care home employees in this study favouring leaving their job rather than getting vaccinated. At a time when many care workers already had negative experiences during the pandemic due to perceived negative judgement from others and a perceived lack of support facing care home employees, policies that require vaccination as a condition of deployment were not positively received., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Identifying factors associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake is essential for designing successful vaccination programmes. We aimed to examine the association between vaccine hesitancy (VH) and HPV vaccine uptake among male and female youth in Switzerland., Design: With a cross-sectional study, an interview-based questionnaire was used to collect information on sociodemographic factors, vaccination records and to measure the prevalence of VH using the Youth Attitudes about Vaccines scale (YAV-5), a modified version of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccinations survey instrument., Setting and Participants: Eligible male and female participants, 15-26 years of age, were recruited through physicians' offices and military enlistment in all three language regions of Switzerland. Of 1001 participants, we included 674 participants with a vaccination record available (415 males and 259 females) in this study., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The outcome was uptake for HPV vaccine (having received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine). Covariates were VH, sex, age and other sociodemographics., Results: 151 (58%) female and 64 (15%) male participants received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. 81 (31%) female and 92 (22%) male participants were VH (YAV-5-Score >50). The odds for being unvaccinated were higher for VH women than non-VH women, adjusted OR=4.90 (95% CI 2.53 to 9.50), but similar among VH and non-VH men, OR=1.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 4.31). The odds for being unvaccinated were lower for younger men (born on or after 1 July 2002) than older men (born before 1 July 2002), OR=0.34 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.81), but we found no association between age and vaccine uptake for female youth, OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.97)., Conclusions: VH was associated with lower HPV vaccine uptake in female youth but not male youth in our study population in Switzerland. Our findings suggest that issues other than VH contribute to HPV underimmunisation in male youth in Switzerland., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: To successfully combat COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake, research has demonstrated that interventions are most effective when tailored to meet local needs through active engagement and co-development with communities. This mixed-methods project uses a human-centred design (HCD) approach to understand local perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and develop strategies to enhance vaccine confidence for children and adolescents., Methods and Analysis: Project ECHO (Étude Communautaire sur l'Hésitation vaccinale contre la COVID-19) combines population-based surveys of parents and adolescents with community-based participatory action research to design and pilot strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccine confidence in two underserved and ethnoculturally diverse neighbourhoods of Montreal, Canada. Two surveys conducted 6 months apart through primary and secondary schools are used to monitor vaccine acceptance and its social determinants among children and youth. Analyses of survey data include descriptive and inferential statistical approaches. Community-led design teams of parents and youth from the two participating neighbourhoods, supported by academic researchers, design thinking experts and community partners, use an HCD approach to: (1) gather data to understand COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among parents and youth in their community and frame a design challenge (inspiration phase); (2) develop an intervention to address the design challenge (ideation phase) and (3) pilot the intervention (implementation phase). Strategies to evaluate the community-led interventions will be co-developed during the implementation phase., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the research ethics boards of the Sainte-Justine University Hospital Centre and the University of Montreal. Community design teams will be involved in the dissemination of findings and the design of knowledge translation initiatives that foster dialogue related to COVID-19 vaccination for children and adolescents among community, school and public health stakeholders. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, community forums, policy briefs, and social media content., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To examine rates of vaccine hesitancy and their correlates among Canadian adults between April 2020 and March 2021., Design: Five sequential cross-sectional age, sex and province-weighted population-based samples who completed online surveys., Setting: Canada., Participants: A total of 15 019 Canadians aged 18 years and over were recruited through a recognised polling firm (Leger Opinion). Respondents were 51.5% female with a mean age of 48.1 (SD 17.2) years (range 18-95 years) and predominantly white (80.8%)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Rates of vaccine hesitancy over the five surveys (time points) and their sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates., Results: A total of 42.2% of respondents reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy, which was lowest during surveys 1 (April 2020) and 5 (March 2021) and highest during survey 3 (November 2020). Fully adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that women, those aged 50 and younger, non-white, those with high school education or less, and those with annual household incomes below the poverty line in Canada were significantly more likely to report vaccine hesitancy, as were essential and healthcare workers, parents of children under the age of 18 and those who do not get regular influenza vaccines. Endorsing prevention behaviours as important for reducing virus transmission and high COVID-19 health concerns were associated with 77% and 54% reduction in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Having high personal financial concerns was associated with 1.33 times increased odds of vaccine hesitancy., Conclusions: Results highlight the importance of targeting vaccine efforts to specific groups by emphasising the outsized health benefits compared with risks of vaccination. Future research should monitor changes in vaccine intentions and behaviour to better understand underlying factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KL is a member of the Canadian COVID-19 Expert Advisory Panel (Health Canada); has served on the advisory board or as a consultant for Schering-Plough, Takeda, AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) and Sojecci; has received sponsorship for investigator-generated research grants from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AbbVie, speaker fees from GSK, Astra-Zeneca, Astellas, Novartis, Takeda, AbbVie, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Xfacto and Air Liquide; and has received support for educational materials from Merck, none of which are related to the current article. MV has served on the advisory board for Diabetes Canada and has received sponsorship for investigator-generated research grants from Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes Care and Bausch Health, and consultation and speaker fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Novo Nordisk, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lifescan, none of which are related to the current article. JP is a member of the Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee (Public Health Ontario) and a member of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. SB is a member of the Health Canada COVID Alert Application Working Group; has served on the advisory board for Bayer and Sanofi; and has received sponsorship for investigator-generated research grants from GSK, Moderna and Abbvie, consultation fees from Schering-Plough, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Sygesa, Bayer, Sanofi, Lucilab and Respiplus, and speaker fees from Novartis, Respiplus and Janssen, none of which are related to the current article., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Study Objectives: The marginalisation of undocumented migrants raises concerns about equitable access to COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to describe migrants' hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccination during the early phase of the vaccination campaign., Setting: This multicentric cross-sectional survey was conducted in health facilities providing care to undocumented migrants in the USA, Switzerland, Italy and France in February-May 2021., Participants: Eligibility criteria included age >16 years, being of foreign origin and living without valid residency permit in the country of recruitment. A convenience sample of minimum 100 patients per study site was targeted., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Data were collected using an anonymous structured questionnaire. The main outcomes were perceived access to the local COVID-19 vaccination programme and demand for vaccination., Results: Altogether, 812 undocumented migrants participated (54.3% Geneva, 17.5% Baltimore, 15.5% Milano and 12.7% Paris). Most (60.9%) were women. The median age was 39 years (interquartile range 1). Participants originated from the Americas (55.9%), Africa (12.7%), Western Pacific (11.2%) Eastern Mediterranean (7.9%), Europe (7.6%) and South-East Asia (4.7%). Overall, 14.1% and 26.2% of participants, respectively, reported prior COVID-19 infection and fear of developing severe COVID-19 infection. Risk factors for severe infection were frequently reported (29.5%). Self-perceived accessibility of COVID-19 vaccination was high (86.4%), yet demand was low (41.1%) correlating with age, comorbidity and views on vaccination which were better for vaccination in general (77.3%) than vaccination against COVID-19 (56.5%). Participants mainly searched for information about vaccination in the traditional and social media., Conclusions: We found a mismatch between perceived accessibility and demand for the COVID-19 vaccination. Public health interventions using different communication modes should build on trust about vaccination in general to tackle undocumented migrants' hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccination with a specific attention to men, younger migrants and those at low clinical risk of severe infection., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Although immunisation prevents the death of millions of infants and children each year, the vaccination coverage of routine childhood vaccination does not reach its target. The reasons for low vaccination uptake can be related to both demand and supply side determinants. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy is increasing globally. However, data on vaccine hesitancy in low-income Arabic countries are scarce. To investigate this issue in Yemen, an Arabic low-income country, we aim to examine the link between vaccine hesitancy and the immunisation status of children living in Costal Hadhramout, Yemen, from the perspective of their parents and healthcare providers., Methods and Analysis: We will use a mixed-method research design. The study will be conducted in Costal Hadhramout in three phases. Phase 1 will involve a situational analysis using secondary data from records of the national expanded immunisation programme in Costal Hadhramout to examine the trend for previous years. Phase 2 will be a quantitative study aimed at assessing the prevalence of vaccination status of children aged <2 years and the determinants of parental vaccine hesitancy perception through a validated questionnaire. Lastly, phase 3 will be a qualitative study that explores vaccine hesitancy in Yemen using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with parents and healthcare providers, respectively., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University Kebangsaan Malaysia. The findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed academic journals, academic conferences and public presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks have increased in past years, and there is great public health interest in monitoring attitudes towards vaccination as well as identifying factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Although the WHO declared vaccine hesitancy as one of the top threats to global health in 2019, studies focused on the determinants and extent of vaccine hesitancy in Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are lacking. This scoping review explores the various factors surrounding vaccine hesitancy, including but not limited to geographic, cultural and religious factors, and examines the extent and nature of the existing evidence on this topic. In light of current development of various COVID-19 vaccines, our work seeks to elucidate the barriers to vaccine uptake in specific populations., Methods and Analysis: This review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Scoping Reviews. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Studies published in English, Arabic and French between January 1998 and December 2020 will be drawn from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus. The search strategy will include terms related to vaccination and vaccine hesitancy in Arab countries in the MENA region. We will also include grey literature on the topic by searching Google and Google Scholar. Studies will be selected according to the Participants-Intervention-Comparators-Outcome model, and all study titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer's input., Ethics and Dissemination: This review is exempted from ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal to ensure wide dissemination., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can affect life-course health and well-being, including risk-taking behaviour and trust. This study explored associations between ACEs and trust in health information on COVID-19, attitudes towards and compliance with COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine hesitancy., Design: National cross-sectional telephone survey using a sample of landline and mobile numbers stratified by Health Board, deprivation quintile and age group., Setting: Households in Wales during national COVID-19 restrictions (December 2020 to March 2021)., Participants: 2285 Welsh residents aged ≥18 years., Measures: Nine ACEs; low trust in National Health Service (NHS) COVID-19 information; supporting removal of social distancing and mandatory face coverings; breaking COVID-19 restrictions; and vaccine hesitancy (rejection or uncertainty of vaccination)., Results: Increasing ACE counts were independently related to low trust in NHS COVID-19 information, feeling unfairly restricted by government and ending mandatory face coverings. High ACE counts (4+ vs 0 ACEs) were also associated with supporting removal of social distancing. Breaking COVID-19 restrictions increased with ACE count with likelihood doubling from no ACEs to 4+ ACEs. Vaccine hesitancy was threefold higher with 4+ ACEs (vs 0 ACEs) and higher in younger age groups. Thus, modelled estimates of vaccine hesitancy ranged from 3.42% with no ACEs, aged ≥70 years, to 38.06% with 4+ ACEs, aged 18-29 years., Conclusions: ACEs are common across populations of many countries. Understanding how they impact trust in health advice and uptake of medical interventions could play a critical role in the continuing response to COVID-19 and controlling future pandemics. Individuals with ACEs suffer greater health risks throughout life and may also be excluded from interventions that reduce infection risks. While pandemic responses should consider how best to reach those suffering from ACEs, longer term, better compliance with public health advice is another reason to invest in safe and secure childhoods for all children., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To estimate the willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in six sub-Saharan African countries and identify differences in acceptance across countries and population groups., Design: Cross-country comparable, descriptive study based on a longitudinal survey., Setting: Six national surveys from countries representing 38% of the sub-Saharan African population (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria and Uganda)., Participants: Respondents of national high-frequency phone surveys, aged 15 years and older, drawn from a nationally representative sample of households., Main Outcome Measures: Willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if an approved vaccine is provided now and for free, disaggregated by demographic attributes and socioeconomic factors obtained from national household surveys. Correlates of and reasons for vaccine hesitancy., Results: Acceptance rates in the six sub-Saharan African countries studied are generally high, with at least four in five people willing to be vaccinated in all but one country. Vaccine acceptance ranges from nearly universal in Ethiopia (97.9%, 95% CI 97.2% to 98.6%) to below what would likely be required for herd immunity in Mali (64.5%, 95% CI 61.3% to 67.8%). We find little evidence for systematic differences in vaccine hesitancy by sex or age but some clusters of hesitancy in urban areas, among the better educated, and in richer households. Safety concerns about the vaccine in general and its side effects specifically emerge as the primary reservations toward a COVID-19 vaccine across countries., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that inadequate demand is unlikely to represent the key bottleneck to reaching high COVID-19 vaccine coverage in sub-Saharan Africa. To turn intent into effective demand, targeted information, sensitisation and engagement campaigns bolstering confidence in the safety of approved vaccines and reducing concerns about side effects will be crucial to safeguard the swift progression of vaccine rollout in one of the world's poorest regions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)