Search

In January 2021, the Swiss government introduced the first COVID-19 vaccines and prioritized allocation to at-risk individuals and professionals working with them. Despite this opportunity, vaccine uptake among staff employed in retirement homes and institutes for people with disabilities was suboptimal. This study aimed to capture real-time decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine among staff employed in nursing homes and institutes for people with disabilities in Southern Switzerland. We conducted semi-structured phone-interviews with 25 staff employed in retirement homes and institutes for people with disabilities between February and May 2021, i.e., when participants had to decide whether they wanted to adhere to the priority vaccination programme. Among participants, 21 either signed up for the COVID-19 vaccination or were fully or partly vaccinated at the time of the interview. For most participants, the vaccination choice was a challenging process: information appeared to be lacking and conflicting; numerous moral principles were at stake and contradictory; the way vaccination was organized clashed with the health values to which respondents had been previously exposed; finally, the fear of discrimination for those who decided not to get vaccinated loomed over the vaccination choice. Participants decided for or against vaccination based on principles, traditions, emotions, and a reflexive assessment of the personal vs. collective benefit of the vaccination, the latter being the most common within the investigated sample. This study shows that deciding to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is a nuanced process and that individuals cannot simply be categorized as "novax" or "provax" based on their vaccination decision., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: L. Suzanne Suggs reports a relationship with MSD European Vaccines that includes: board membership., (© 2022 The Authors.)