Search

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant gaps in the United States' pandemic and public health emergency response system. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) offers several policy recommendations for enhancing federal, state, and local preparedness for future pandemics and public health emergencies. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant gaps in the United States' pandemic and public health emergency response system. At the federal level, government responses were undercut by a lack of centralized coordination, inadequately defined responsibilities, and an under-resourced national stockpile. Contradictory and unclear guidance throughout the early months of the pandemic, along with inconsistent funding to public health agencies, also created notable variance in state and local responses. The lack of a coordinated response added pressure to an already overwhelmed health care system, which was forced to resort to rationing care and personal protective equipment, creating moral distress and trauma for health care workers and their patients. Despite these severe shortcomings, the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted successful policies and approaches, such as Operation Warp Speed, which led to the fastest development and distribution of a vaccine in history. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) offers several policy recommendations for enhancing federal, state, and local preparedness for future pandemic and public health emergencies. This policy paper builds on various statements produced by ACP throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including on the ethical distribution of vaccinations and resources, conditions to resume economic and social activity, and efforts to protect the health and well-being of medical professionals, among others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strikingly ignoring the critical impact of systemic racism in vulnerabilities to the deadly coronavirus, phase one of the vaccine rollout is not reaching the Black population that has suffered the most from COVID. An urgent need exists for a race-conscious approach that ensures equitable opportunities to both access and receive the vaccines., (© 2021. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

Objective: Given their vulnerable health status and resource constraints, the perspectives of women with criminal-legal involvement (WCLI) are important but not usually represented in the literature on vaccine interest and vaccine hesitancy. This study aims to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine affected the influenza vaccine uptake among WCLI., Methods: A cross-sectional secondary analysis was conducted using data collected from the Tri-City study, which followed WCLI in three U.S. cities from 2019 to 2023. We mapped the distribution of influenza vaccine uptake in 2019-2023 and developed a composite outcome that reflected participants' patterns of Y/N to influenza vaccine, which were categorized into four groups: Influenza Vaccine Supportive, Influenza Vaccine Adaptive, Influenza Vaccine Discontinued, and Influenza Vaccine Resistant., Results: Out of 507 people: 23.7% were Supportive, 8.5% Adaptive, 15.2% Discontinued and 38.3% Resistant. People who received the COVID vaccine had significantly lower odds of being identified as Discontinued (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.20-0.87, p = .020) and Resistant (OR = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.13-0.43, p < .001), compared to the Supportive group. Mistrust toward COVID-19-related information was a significant independent predictor of being Adaptive (OR = 1.59, 95%CI = 1.08-2.35, p = .019), Discontinued (OR = 1.61, 95%CI = 1.15-2.25, p = .006), and Resistant (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.19-2.00, p < .001) relative to Supportive., Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy poses significant challenges to public health efforts, with apparent dampening effect across vaccines. Public health messaging and clinical interactions informed by best practices in communication tailored to the lived experience of all people, including women with criminal-legal system involvement, will be necessary to inform future interventions aimed at increasing vaccine uptake., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has been a major contributor to large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases globally, including in the United States., Methods: Data from the 2019-2022 National Immunization Surveys were analyzed to assess parental hesitancy toward routine vaccination of their children aged 6 months -17 years. Joinpoint regression was employed to investigate trends in VH from 2019 to 2022 nationally overall and among socio-demographic subgroups. Using logistic regression, the difference between the prevalence of VH before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months-4 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years was computed. Both unadjusted and adjusted estimates were reported. VH was also compared within each socio-demographic subgroup with a reference level, at two-time points- before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for each age group., Results: Overall, VH remained around 19.0 % from Q2 2019 to Q3 2022. Parents of non-Hispanic Black children had the largest average quarterly decrease in VH (β = -0.55; p < 0.05 by test for trend). After the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months to 4 years, the adjusted percentage of children having parents that reported VH decreased by 2.2 (95 % CI: -3.9, -0.6) percentage points (pp) from 21.6 % to 19.4 %. Conversely, for children aged 5-11 years, VH increased by 1.2 (95 % CI: 0.2, 2.3) pp, from 19.8 % to 21.0 %. VH among parents of non-Hispanic Black children decreased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 12-17 years but remained significantly higher compared to parents of non-Hispanic White children before and after authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for all age groups., Discussion: About 1 in 5 children had parents reporting VH from 2019 to 2022. Parental VH increased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years and declined for children aged 6 months-4 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Post-COVID Conditions (or Long COVID) have been widely reported, but population-based studies exploring the relationship between its risk factors are lacking. We examined the associations between Long COVID, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], vaccination status, and cigarette smoking. We also tested for the modifying effect of COPD status., Methods: Data from the 2022 US nationwide Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were analyzed. Our primary outcome was Long COVID (Yes/No) after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictor variables were COPD, coronary heart disease (CHD), diabetes, asthma, body mass index, cigarette smoking status, and number of COVID-19 vaccinations (0-4). Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used and adjusted for sociodemographic factors. Regression models were used to explore the modifying effects of COPD status., Results: The weighted prevalence of Long COVID among survivors (N = 121,379) was 21.8% (95%CI: 21.4, 22.3), with tiredness/fatigue (26.2% [95%:25.1, 27.2]) as the most common symptom. Respondents with COPD (aOR: 1.71 [95%CI: 1.45, 2.02]), current daily smokers (aOR: 1.23 [95%CI:1.01, 1.49]), and former smokers (aOR: 1.24 [95%CI:1.12, 1.38]) (vs. never established smokers) had higher odds of Long COVID. However, respondents who had received three (aOR: 0.75 [95%CI:0.65, 0.85]) and four (aOR: 0.71 [95%CI:0.58, 0.86]) vaccine doses (vs. no vaccine) had lower odds of Long COVID. COPD had a modifying effect on the relationship between cigarette smoking and Long COVID (p-value: 0.013)., Conclusion: Our findings underscore a complex interaction between COPD, cigarette smoking, and Long COVID. Further, COVID-19 vaccination may be protective against Long COVID., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Long-COVID (having symptoms lasting 3 months or longer post-infection) is an emerging public health concern, yet research on whether COVID-19 booster vaccines can mitigate this condition is limited. This study examined associations between booster uptake and long-COVID prevalence among U.S. adults. Data were analyzed from 8757 adults aged 18 years or older with a history of COVID-19 infection from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Weighted prevalence and logistic regression models examined relationships between self-reported COVID-19 booster vaccination status and long-COVID, adjusting for sociodemographics and health factors. 19.5 % reported experiencing long-COVID. Individuals receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine had significantly lower adjusted odds of long-COVID (OR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.61-0.93) compared to unvaccinated individuals. Overall, these findings suggest that COVID-19 booster vaccination is associated with a reduced prevalence of long-COVID among the U.S. adult population, underscoring the importance of optimizing booster uptake to mitigate the long-term impacts of COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier India Pvt Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: COVID-19 vaccination is critical for reducing serious illness and hospitalizations, yet many remain hesitant. We conducted a survey of frontline physicians to identify patient concerns and physician strategies to address COVID-19 vaccine-hesitancy., Methods: A national random sample of physicians in frontline specialties selected from a comprehensive list of practicing physicians in the U.S. were emailed a survey in August 2021. Multiple choice and open-ended questions inquired about patient concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines and strategies used by physicians to counter vaccine misinformation and encourage vaccine-hesitant patients. Weighting was applied to achieve representativeness and reduce non-response bias. Network analysis examined co-occurring patient concerns. Open-ended responses on communication strategies were coded via thematic analysis. Multi-variable logistic regression examined associations between physician and pandemic characteristics with patient concerns and use of communication strategies., Results: 531 physicians responded: primary care (241); emergency medicine (142); critical care (84); hospitalists (34); and infectious disease (30). Weighted response balance statistics showed excellent balance between respondents and nonrespondents. On average, physicians reported four patient vaccine concerns. Safety, side effects, vaccine misinformation, and mistrust in government were most common, and often co-occurring. 297 physicians described communication strategies: 180 (61 %) provided vaccine education and 94 (32 %) created a safe space for vaccine discussion. Narrative responses from physicians provided compelling examples of both successes and communication challenges arising from misinformation. Compared with emergency medicine, critical care (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.14, 5.24), infectious disease (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.00, 6.02), and primary care physicians (OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.02, 2.70) were more likely to provide communication strategies., Conclusions: Many physicians engage with vaccine hesitant patients using a variety of strategies. Dissemination of effective system and physician-level communication interventions could enhance physician success., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The importance of vaccination in combating the COVID-19 pandemic is widely acknowledged. The aim of this study was (1) to understand how one's vaccine conspiracy beliefs would influence their public health news processing, (2) to examine how specific public health news features (i.e., news frame) would influence message processing, and (3) to examine if there were any differences between Black and White participants in their message processing., Methods: A nationwide online experiment (N = 821) with a 3 (vaccine conspiracy beliefs: high vs. moderate vs. low) × 2 (participants' race: Black vs. White) × 2 (news frames: gain vs. loss) mixed-factorial design was conducted in the United States., Results: Participants' level of vaccine conspiracy beliefs was predictive of their responses to outcome measures. Additionally, Black participants reported higher perceived message effectiveness, more favorable attitudes toward the message, and higher vaccination intentions than White participants. Furthermore, health news that emphasized vaccination benefits produced more favorable attitudes than those emphasizing losses associated with non-vaccination, especially for White participants. Lastly, participants reported more favorable attitudes toward gain-framed health news regardless of their vaccine conspiracy beliefs., Conclusion: It is crucial for health officials to work to find effective media message strategies to combat COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories and misinformation. Furthermore, this study supports the significance of health organizations' ongoing efforts to tailor public health messaging to specific racial groups, as evidenced by considerable variations in perceptions among Black and White Americans., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier India Pvt Ltd.)

Objective: This study examines whether individualism weakens the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine eligibility expansions in the United States in 2021, and assesses the associated social benefits or costs associated with individualism., Methods: We construct a county-level composite individualism index as a proxy of culture and the fraction of vaccine eligible population as a proxy of vaccination campaign (mean: 41.34%). We estimate whether the COVID-19 vaccine eligibility policy is less effective in promoting vaccine coverage, reducing in COVID-19 related hospitalization and death using a linear two-way fixed effect model in a sample of 2866 counties for the period between early December 2020 and July 1, 2021. We also test whether individualism shapes people's attitudes towards vaccine using a linear probability model in a sample of 625,308 individuals aged 18-65 (mean age: 43.3; 49% male; 59.1% non-Hispanic white, 19.1% Hispanic, 12% African American; 5.9% Asian) from the Household Pulse Survey., Results: The effects of expanded vaccine eligibility are diminished in counties with greater individualism, as evidenced by lower effectiveness in increasing vaccination rates and reducing outpatient doctor visits primarily for COVID-related symptoms and COVID deaths. Moreover, our results show that this cultural influence on attitudes towards vaccine is more pronounced among the less educated, but unrelated to race., Conclusion: Assuming an average level of vaccine eligibility policies and an average intensity of individualism across the nation, we calculate that the average social cost associated with an individualistic culture amid the pandemic is approximately $50.044 billion, equivalent to 1.32% of the total U.S. health care spending in 2019. Our paper suggests that strategies to promote public policy compliance should be tailored to accommodate cultural and social contexts., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

COVID-19 booster dose vaccination has been crucial in ensuring protection against COVID-19 including recently predominant Omicron variants. Because vaccines against newer SARS-CoV- 2 variants are likely to be recommended in future, it will be valuable to understand past booster dose uptake among different demographic groups. Using U.S. vaccination data, this study examined intervals between primary series completion and receipt of first booster dose (monovalent or bivalent) during August 2021 - October 2022 among persons ≥12 years of age who had completed a COVID-19 vaccine primary series by October 2021. Sub-populations who were late booster recipients (received a booster dose ≥12 months after the primary series) or received no booster dose included persons <35 years old, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine primary dose recipients, persons in certain racial and ethnic groups, and persons living in rural and more socially vulnerable areas, and in the South region of the United States; these groups may benefit the most from public health outreach efforts to achieve timely COVID-19 vaccination completion in future., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: To date, the United States (US) leads the world in the number of infections and deaths due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality are staggering. Age-adjusted data show that AA and Latino individuals have had higher rates of death over most of the pandemic and during surges. Project 2VIDA! is community-based participatory research (CBPR) that was developed to address individual, social, and contextual factors related to access and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among African American and Latino communities in Southern California. This paper describes the study protocol and overarching objectives., Methods and Design: Project 2VIDA! is a multilevel intervention that builds on the principals of CBPR and is designed to increase uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among African American and Latino individuals (≥16 years and older) in San Diego County. The intervention was developed with a working group comprised of representatives from community and academia and centers on targeted COVID-19 individual awareness and education, linkage to medical and supportive services, COVID-19 community outreach and health promotion and offering the COVID-19 vaccine through community pop-up clinics., Discussion: Findings from 2VIDA! will provide data on the impact, feasibility, and acceptability of the intervention which are all crucial for the adaptation, refinement, and improvement of vaccine outreach interventions for COVID-19 and other vaccine preventable infectious diseases that severely impact African American and Latino communities., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05022472?term=Project+2VIDA&draw=2&rank=1, NCT05022472., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Skaathun, Salgin, Muñoz, Talavera, Smith, Stockman, O’Bryan, Ramirez, James-Price and Servin.)

Background: Some documented barriers of vaccination behaviors include social determinants of health (SDoH). While there have been many devastations from COVID-19, food security has fluctuated during the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to examine the association with food insecurity and vaccine hesitancy among adults in the U.S., Methods: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Federal agencies created the online Household Pulse Survey (HPS) to track social outcomes of the pandemic in the U.S. We performed cross-sectional analysis with data from the HPS collected between March 30, 2022, and April 11, 2022 (Week 44) on adults (N = 6449, weighted N = 37,687,910). Vaccine hesitancy was divided into two groups: 1) probably, not sure, probably not, and definitely not receiving the vaccine, and 2) received the vaccine and definitely will get the vaccine. Food sufficiency was a binary variable (Yes/no) based on the question that best described the food eaten in the household the last 7 days. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted using replicate weights with SAS. Logistic regressions adjusted for sex, age, race and ethnicity, income, education, COVID-19 infection, health insurance, food insecurity, children <17 years, remote work, health worker status, functional status, and mental health., Results: During HPS Week 44, 11.2 % of represented Americans experienced food insecurity and 13.8 % were vaccine hesitant. The unadjusted odds ratio was 2.41 (95 % CI = 1.30, 4.50), suggesting adults with food insecurity were more likely to be vaccine hesitant than those with food security. After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, and COVID-19 history, the statistical significance remained (AOR = 2.14, 95 % CI = 1.15, 3.99). However, after adjusting for education, we no longer observed a significant association (AOR = 1.70, 95 % CI = 0.89, 3.34), and it remained insignificant in the fully adjusted model (AOR = 1.62, 95 % CI = 0.78, 3.34)., Conclusion: Overall, adults with food insecurity were 2.41 times as likely as those with food security to also have vaccine hesitancy. Education mediated the relationship between food insufficiency and vaccine hesitancy. Programs to improve vaccination rates need to also focus on food sufficiency., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States released the CDC-issued vaccination card to document the status of immunizations. It eventually was used as a verification system to allow patrons to safely access public venues. This is/was apparently a simple printed piece of paper with minimal security features which made it an easy target for counterfeiters with little expertise required. Those unvaccinated who wished to enter areas that required proof of the COVID-19 vaccine were soon finding alternative illegal methods to do so which led to public health concerns. This research was divided into two parts. Part A aimed to forensically identify the security features with a video spectral comparator and a stereomicroscope. Ten "known" blank cards were collected directly from dispensaries that administered the vaccine and 68 "unknowns" from individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Part B aimed to evaluate the authentication systems employed by countries outside the United States to propose a model on how the vaccination card could be improved and what security features should be included for future instances requiring proof of immunization. The results revealed the CDC document was produced with minimal security features making the document prone to counterfeiting. Furthermore, based on the information collected from other countries' vaccination certificates, it is recommended to develop a dual authentication system, with digital and printable aspects, that contains a QR code linked to a database. Other security features may include a non-optical brightener substrate, security fibers, a watermarked logo, offset printing, and a geographical color-coded system., (© 2023 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)

Background: Adults who are hesitant toward routinely recommended vaccines for adults may also be hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines. However, the distribution and differences in hesitancy between routinely recommended vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines, and the association of hesitancy regarding routinely recommended vaccines and hesitancy with COVID-19 vaccination status and intent, is unknown., Methods: Using the Research and Development Survey (RANDS) during COVID-19, Round 3, a probability-sampled, nationally representative, web and phone survey fielded from May 17 - June 30, 2021 (n = 5,434), we examined the distribution and difference in prevalence of hesitancy towards COVID-19 and vaccines in general, beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy, and factors impacting plans to be vaccinated against COVID-19., Results: Reported hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines (42.2%) was 6-percentage points higher than hesitancy towards vaccines in general (35.7%). Populations who were most hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines were younger adults, non-Hispanic Black adults, adults with lower education or income, and adults who were associated with a religion. Beliefs in the social benefit and the importance of vaccination, and the belief that COVID-19 vaccines lower risk for infection, were strongly associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent to be vaccinated., Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy for both COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general is common. Health providers and public health officials should utilize strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, including providing strong clear recommendations for needed vaccines, addressing safety and effectiveness concerns, and utilizing trusted messengers such as religious and community leaders to improve vaccine confidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This paper challenges historically preconceived notions surrounding a minor's ability to make medical decisions, arguing that federal health law should be reformed to allow minors with capacity as young as age 12 to consent to their own Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC)-approved COVID-19 vaccinations. This proposal aligns with and expands upon current exceptions to limitations on adolescent decision-making. This analysis reviews the historic and current anti-vaccination sentiment, examines legal precedence and rationale, outlines supporting ethical arguments regarding adolescent decision-making, and offers rebuttals to anticipated ethical counterarguments.

This paper simulates a hypothetical pan-coronavirus vaccine that confers immediate sterilizing immunity against all SARS-CoV-2 variants. Simulations used a SEIIS (susceptible, exposed, infective, immune, susceptible) spreadsheet model that ran two parallel subpopulations: one that accepted vaccination and another that refused it. The two subpopulations could transmit infections to one another. Using data from the United States (US), the simulated vaccine was tested against limiting factors such as vaccine hesitancy, slow vaccination distribution, and the development of high-transmission variants. The vaccine was often successful at reducing cases, but high-transmission variants and discontinuation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as masking greatly elevated cases. A puzzling outcome was that if NPIs were discontinued and high-transmission variants became common, the model predicted consistently higher rates of disease than are actually observed in the US in 2024. However, if cumulative exposure to virus antigens increased the duration of immunity or decreased the infectivity of the virus, the model predictions were brought back into a more realistic range. The major finding was that even when a COVID-19 vaccine always produces sterilizing immunity against every SARS-CoV-2 variant, its ability to control the epidemic can be compromised by multiple common conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare vaccine-related attitudes and values of parents of children 2-17 years old to other adults, examine intentions to vaccinate their children, and identify factors associated with intending to vaccinate children., Methods: A nationally representative survey was conducted in September 2021 (just before the EUA for children 5-11 years old) using Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based web panel. The survey measured COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities among US adults. Scale response options to survey items were dichotomized, and cross-tabulations and logistic regressions were performed., Results: Parents had lower odds of reporting being vaccinated against COVID-19 than other adults even after adjusting for associated sociodemographic characteristics such as age (aOR: 0.66; 95 %CI: 0.50-0.87). The most prevalent parental concerns about COVID-19 vaccines included the speed of their development (88 %), potential side effects (78 %), suspicion of government (77 %), and suspicion of pharmaceutical companies (72 %). Fewer than half (42 %) of parents intended to vaccinate their children 5-11 years old, while 38 % were uncertain and 20 % were unlikely to ever vaccinate their children. Vaccinated parents had higher odds than unvaccinated parents of intending to vaccinate their children (OR: 675.51; 95 %CI: 106.46-4286.12). Discussions with healthcare providers who encouraged COVID-19 vaccination were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children (OR: 11.29; 95 %CI: 2.60-49.02)., Conclusions: We found parental vaccination and conversations with providers were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children. Decisions about childhood vaccination need to be supported by healthcare providers and a public health system that makes vaccine access and related information equitable and accessible. Vaccination-related decision making should be guided by healthcare providers and provide information about safety and risk to children., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Matthew Dudley has received research support from Merck. Daniel Salmon has received research support from Merck and serves on advisory boards for Merck, Janssen, Sanofi and Moderna. Matthew Dudley, Daniel Salmon, and Rajiv Rimal have received funding from the Vaccination Confidence Fund, which is jointly funded by Facebook and Merck. Jennifer Gerber has received support from RTI International. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The present study aimed to estimate the reporting rates (RRs) of acute kidney injury (AKI) and renal failure (RF) after COVID-19 vaccination in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United States., Methods: We retrieved and analyzed pharmacovigilance data on suspected AKI and RF cases and fatalities post COVID-19 vaccination with licensed vaccines reported to EudraVigilance and VAERS between week 52/2020 and week 52/2022 or week 1/2023, respectively. Reporting rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated per million administered vaccine doses., Results: In total, 4,244 AKI and 1,557 RF suspected cases were notified to EudraVigilance (1,692 AKI/971 RF) and VAERS (2,552 AKI/586 RF) during the study period following the administration of >1.6 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses (EEA: 970,934,453/US: 666,511,603). The overall RRs were 3.03 (95 % CI: 2.94-3.12) for AKI and 1.11 (95 % CI: 1.06-1.17) for RF per million administered vaccine doses. Indices for statistically significant increased risks were found in subjects, especially males, ≥65 years compared to 18-64 years old (AKI: OR = 7.23, 95 % CI: 6.63-7.88, p = 0.000, and RF: OR = 4.74, 95 % CI: 3.99-5.63, p < 0.001). AKI reporting rates were higher in the US, while RF reporting rates were higher in Europe. Both potential side effects were elevated following vectored rather than mRNA vaccines, with the highest reporting rates post AD26.COV2.S vaccination in the US (AKI: RR = 12.24, 95 % CI: 10.66-13.81; RF: RR = 3.17, 95 % CI: 2.36-3.97). There were 1,312 deaths possibly associated with AKI (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI: 0.89-0.99) and 460 deaths possibly associated with RF (RR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.30-0.36) per million vaccine doses. Fatalities were lower in Europe than in the US (AKI: OR = 0.25, 95 % CI: 0.22-0.28, p < 0.001; RF: OR = 0.82, 95 % CI: 0.69-0.99, p = 0.036)., Conclusions: AKI and RF may be observed rarely following vaccination against COVID-19. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings and uncover the underlying pathophysiological mechanism., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To inform Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 vaccine policy decisions, we developed a benefit-risk assessment framework that directly compared the estimated benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individuals (e.g., prevention of COVID-19-associated hospitalization) with risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. This assessment framework originated following the identification of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination in April 2021. We adapted the benefit-risk assessment framework for use in subsequent policy decisions, including the adverse events of myocarditis and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following mRNA and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination respectively, expansion of COVID-19 vaccine approvals or authorizations to new age groups, and use of booster doses. Over the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States (December 2020-December 2021), we used the benefit-risk assessment framework to inform seven different ACIP policy decisions. This framework allowed for rapid and direct comparison of the benefits and potential harms of vaccination, which may be helpful in informing other vaccine policy decisions. The assessments were a useful tool for decision-making but required reliable and granular data to stratify analyses and appropriately focus on populations most at risk for a specific adverse event. Additionally, careful decision-making was needed on parameters for data inputs. Sensitivity analyses were used where data were limited or uncertain; adjustments in the methodology were made over time to ensure the assessments remained relevant and applicable to the policy questions under consideration., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Priority for solid organ transplant generally does not consider the underlying cause of the need for transplantation. This paper argues that a distinctive set of factors justify assigning lower priority to willfully unvaccinated individuals who require transplant as a result of suffering from COVID‐19. These factors include the personal responsibility of the patients for their own condition and the public outrage likely to ensue if willfully unvaccinated patients receive organs at the expense of vaccinated ones. The paper then proposes a three‐prong test for similar deviations from the current allocation standard that incorporates patient responsibility, foreseeability and avoidability, and the frequency of the occurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distributing scarce resources such as COVID‐19 vaccines is often a highly time‐sensitive and mission‐critical operation. Our research was prompted by a significant obstacle that the United States and other nations encountered during the early months of the COVID‐19 vaccination campaign: Most COVID‐19 vaccines require two doses given 3 or 4 weeks apart. Given the severely limited supply and mounting pressure on many countries to reduce hospitalizations and mortality, how to effectively roll out two‐dose vaccines was a critical policy decision. In this paper, we first model and analyze inventory dynamics of the rollout process under three rollout strategies: (1) holding back second doses, (2) releasing second doses, and (3) stretching the lead time between doses. Then we develop an SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered) model that incorporates COVID‐19 asymptomatic and symptomatic infections to evaluate these strategies in terms of infections, hospitalizations, and mortality. Among our findings, we show releasing second doses reduces infections but creates uneven vaccination patterns. In addition, to ensure second doses are given on time without holding back inventory, strictly less than half of the supply can be allocated to first‐dose appointments. Stretching the between‐dose lead time flattens the infection curve and reduces both hospitalizations and mortality compared with the strategy of releasing second doses. We also consider an alternative single‐dose vaccine with lower efficacy and show that the vaccine can be more effective than its two‐dose counterparts in reducing infections and mortality. We conduct extensive sensitivity analyses related to age composition, risk‐based prioritization, supply disruptions, and disease transmissibility. Our paper provides important implications for policymakers to develop effective vaccine rollout strategies in developed and developing countries alike. More broadly, our paper sheds light on how to develop effective operations strategies for distributing time‐sensitive resources in times of crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Foundational literature demonstrates that racial residential segregation results in poorer health outcomes for Black people than white people due to a variety of social determinants of health. COVID-19 vaccine uptake is important for better health outcomes, regardless of race. The COVID-19 pandemic has elevated concerns about racial health disparities but with little discussion of racial residential segregation as a predictor of disparate health outcomes. This paper investigates the relationship between racial residential segregation and COVID-19 vaccine uptake using county level data from the State of Georgia (USA)., Methods: Using publicly available data, regression analysis is conducted for 138 of the 159 counties in Georgia USA, using a dissimilarity index that describes county level differences in racial residential segregation. The primary independent variable is Black-white differences in vaccine uptake at the county level. The analytic methods focus on a spatial analysis to support information for county level health departments as the basis for health policy and resource allocation., Results: Constructing a variable of the difference in vaccination rates between Black and white residents we find that Black-white differences in COVID-19 vaccination are most notable in the 69 most segregated of the 159 counties in Georgia. A ten-point lower segregation index is associated with an improvement in the Black-white vaccination gap of 1.5 percentage points (95% CI -0.31, -0.00). Income inequality and access to health care resources, such as access to a primary care physician, also predict Black-white differences in vaccination rates at the county level. Suggested mapping approaches of publicly available data at a state county level, provides a resource for local policy makers to address future challenges for epidemic and pandemic situations., Conclusion: County level and geospatial data analysis can inform policy makers addressing the impact of racial residential segregation on local health outcomes, even for pandemic and epidemic issues., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: On 2/27/2021, FDA authorized Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad.26.COV2.S) for use in individuals 18 years of age and older. Vaccine safety was monitored using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national passive surveillance system, and v-safe, a smartphone-based surveillance system., Methods: VAERS and v-safe data from 2/27/2021 to 2/28/2022 were analyzed. Descriptive analyses included sex, age, race/ethnicity, seriousness, AEs of special interest (AESIs), and cause of death. For prespecified AESIs, reporting rates were calculated using the total number of doses of Ad26.COV2.S administered. For myopericarditis, observed-to-expected (O/E) analysis was performed based on the number verified cases, vaccine administration data, and published background rates. Proportions of v-safe participants reporting local and systemic reactions, as well as health impacts, were calculated., Results: During the analytic period, 17,018,042 doses of Ad26.COV2.S were administered in the United States, and VAERS received 67,995 reports of AEs after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Most AEs (59,750; 87.9 %) were non-serious and were similar to those observed during clinical trials. Serious AEs included COVID-19 disease, coagulopathy (including thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome; TTS), myocardial infarction, Bell's Palsy, and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Among AESIs, reporting rates per million doses of Ad26.COV2.S administered ranged from 0.06 for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to 263.43 for COVID-19 disease. O/E analysis revealed elevated reporting rate ratios (RRs) for myopericarditis; among adults ages 18-64 years, the RR was 3.19 (95 % CI 2.00, 4.83) within 7 days and 1.79 (95 % CI 1.26, 2.46) within 21 days of vaccination. Of 416,384 Ad26.COV2.S recipients enrolled into v-safe, 60.9 % reported local symptoms (e.g. injection site pain) and 75.9 % reported systemic symptoms (e.g., fatigue, headache). One-third of participants (141,334; 33.9 %) reported a health impact, but only 1.4 % sought medical care., Conclusion: Our review confirmed previously established safety risks for TTS and GBS and identified a potential safety concern for myocarditis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The lack of precise definitions and terminological consensus about the impact studies of COVID-19 vaccination leads to confusing statements from the scientific community about what a vaccination impact study is., Objective: The present work presents a narrative review, describing and discussing COVID-19 vaccination impact studies, mapping their relevant characteristics, such as study design, approaches and outcome variables, while analyzing their similarities, distinctions, and main insights., Methods: The articles screening, regarding title, abstract, and full-text reading, included papers addressing perspectives about the impact of vaccines on population outcomes. The screening process included articles published before June 10, 2022, based on the initial papers' relevance to this study's research topics. The main inclusion criteria were data analyses and study designs based on statistical modelling or comparison of pre- and post-vaccination population., Results: The review included 18 studies evaluating the vaccine impact in a total of 48 countries, including 32 high-income countries (United States, Israel, and 30 Western European countries) and 16 low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, and 14 Eastern European countries). We summarize the main characteristics of the vaccination impact studies analyzed in this narrative review., Conclusion: Although all studies claim to address the impact of a vaccination program, they differ significantly in their objectives since they adopt different definitions of impact, methodologies, and outcome variables. These and other differences are related to distinct data sources, designs, analysis methods, models, and approaches., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Hastenreiter Filho, Peres, Maddalena, Baião, Ranzani, Hamacher, Maçaira and Bozza.)

Many statistical methods have been applied to VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) database to study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. However, none of these methods considered the adverse event (AE) ontology. The AE ontology contains important information about biological similarities between AEs. In this paper, we develop a model to estimate vaccine-AE associations while incorporating the AE ontology. We model a group of AEs using the zero-inflated negative binomial model and then estimate the vaccine-AE association using the empirical Bayes approach. This model handles the AE count data with excess zeros and allows borrowing information from related AEs. The proposed approach was evaluated by simulation studies and was further illustrated by an application to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) dataset. The proposed method is implemented in an R package available at https://github.com/umich-biostatistics/zGPS.AO., (© 2023 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Using a nationally representative household sample, we sought to better understand types of medical mistrust as a driver of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We used survey responses to conduct a latent class analysis to classify respondents into categories and explained this classification as a function of sociodemographic and attitudinal variables using multinomial logistic regression models. We then estimated the probability of respondents agreeing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine conditional on their medical mistrust category. We extracted a five-class solution to represent trust. The high trust group (53.0 %) is characterized by people who trust both their doctors and medical research. The trust in own doctor group (19.0 %) trust their own doctors but is ambiguous when it comes to trusting medical research. The high distrust group (6.3 %) neither trust their own doctor nor medical research. The undecided group (15.2 %) is characterized by people who agree on some dimensions and disagree on others. The no opinion group (6.2 %) did not agree nor disagree with any of the dimensions. Relative to the high trust group, those who trust their own doctors are almost 20 percentage points less likely to plan to get vaccinated (average marginal effect (AME) = 0.21, p <.001), and those who have high distrust are 24 percentage points less likely (AME = -0.24, p <.001) to report planning to get the vaccine. Results indicate that beyond sociodemographic characteristics and political attitudes, people's trust archetypes on parts of the medical field significantly predict their probability of wanting to get vaccinated. Our findings suggest that efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy should focus on building capacity of trusted providers to speak with their patients and parents of their patients, to recommend COVID-19 vaccination and build a trusting relationship; and increase trust and confidence in medical research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In 2021, HHS Office of Minority Health and CDC developed a composite measure of social vulnerability called the Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (MHSVI) to assess the needs of communities most vulnerable to COVID-19. The MHSVI extends the CDC Social Vulnerability Index with two new themes on healthcare access and medical vulnerability. This analysis examines COVID-19 vaccination coverage by social vulnerability using the MHSVI., Methods: County-level COVID-19 vaccine administration data among persons aged ≥18 years reported to CDC from 12/14/20 to 01/31/22 were analyzed. U.S. counties from 50 states and DC were categorized into tertiles of vulnerability (low, moderate, and high) for the composite MHSVI measure and each of the 34 indicators. Vaccination coverage (≥1 dose, primary series completion, and receipt of a booster dose) was calculated by tertiles for the composite MHSVI measure and each indicator., Results: Counties with lower per capita income, higher proportion of individuals with no high school diploma, living below poverty, ≥65 years of age, with a disability, and in mobile homes had lower vaccination uptake. However, counties with larger proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals speaking English less than "very well" had higher coverage. Counties with fewer primary care physicians and greater medical vulnerabilities had lower ≥ 1 dose vaccination coverage. Furthermore, counties of high vulnerability had lower primary series completion and receipt of a booster dose. There were no clear patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by tertiles for the composite measure., Conclusion: Results from the new components in the MHSVI identify needs to prioritize persons in counties with greater medical vulnerabilities and limited access to health care, who are at greater risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings suggest that using a composite measure to characterize social vulnerability might mask disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake that would have otherwise been observed using specific indicators., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This paper examines effectiveness of vaccination with symptoms by age groups in the US and Hamamatsu city in Japan. The efficacy of vaccination has been reported in Singapore, but both datasets such as the US CDC dataset and the Hamamatsu dataset contradict the Singapore results. Both local government and government datasets are publicly available for peer review and reader validation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study explored factors associated with parents' attitudes and intentions to seek information about the COVID-19 vaccine for their children (ages 0-18) and intentions to vaccinate their age-eligible children., Design and Methods: As part of an anonymous online cross-sectional survey, parents' vaccine attitudes, COVID-19 vaccine intentions for their children, health literacy, health numeracy, and sociodemographic variables were assessed. Multivariable ordered logistic regression models identified factors associated with parents' COVID-19 vaccine intentions for their children., Results: Parents/guardians (n = 963) were mostly White (82.3%), insured (88.0%), and college graduates (57.3%). Men reported higher intentions than women to seek information about the COVID-19 vaccine for their children (p = 0.003) and higher intentions to vaccinate their children (p = 0.049). Parental characteristics associated with increased intentions to have their children vaccinated included higher educational attainment (p < 0.001), more positive general vaccine attitudes (p < 0.001), preference for health information in a language other than English (p = 0.006), higher income (p = 0.048), having health insurance (p = 0.05), health literacy (p = 0.024), and health numeracy (p = 0.049)., Conclusions: Multiple sociodemographic characteristics including male gender, higher health literacy and numeracy, and language preference are noteworthy factors associated with parental COVID-19 vaccine intentions that could inform the planning and implementation of educational interventions., Practice Implications: Nurses are important sources of trusted information and play an important role in parent/family health education and in understanding myriad factors that may improve attitudes and enhance readiness toward vaccine uptake. Our findings emphasize the potential value of examining tailored/targeted COVID-19 vaccine education according to key influencing factors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the All of Us Research Program longitudinal cohort study developed the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey to better understand the pandemic experiences and health impacts of COVID-19 on diverse populations within the United States. Six survey versions were deployed between May 2020 and March 2021, covering mental health, loneliness, activity, substance use, and discrimination, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, testing, treatment, and vaccination. A total of 104,910 All of Us Research Program participants, of whom over 73% were from communities traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, completed 275,201 surveys; 9,693 completed all 6 surveys. Response rates varied widely among demographic groups and were lower among participants from certain racial and ethnic minority populations, participants with low income or educational attainment, and participants with a Spanish language preference. Survey modifications improved participant response rates between the first and last surveys (13.9% to 16.1%, P  < 0.001). This paper describes a data set with longitudinal COVID-19 survey data in a large, diverse population that will enable researchers to address important questions related to the pandemic, a data set that is of additional scientific value when combined with the program's other data sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is not static. In order to develop effective vaccine uptake interventions, we need to understand the extent to which vaccine hesitancy fluctuates and identify factors associated with both between- and within-person differences in vaccine hesitancy. The goals of the current study were to assess the extent to which COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy varied at an individual level across time and to determine whether disgust sensitivity and germ aversion were associated with between- and within-person differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1025; 516 woman; M age  = 46.34 years, SD age  = 16.56, range: 18 to 85 years; 72.6 % White) completed six weekly online surveys (March 20 - May 3, 2020). Between-person mean COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates were relatively stable across the six-week period (range: 38-42 %). However, there was considerable within-person variability in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Approximately, 40 % of the sample changed their vaccine hesitancy at least once during the six weeks. There was a significant between-person effect for disgust sensitivity, such that greater disgust sensitivity was associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance. There was also a significant within-person effect for germ aversion. Participants who experienced greater germ aversion for a given week relative to their own six week average were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant that week relative to their own six-week average. This study provides important information on rapidly changing individual variability in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on a weekly basis, which should be taken into consideration with any efforts to decrease vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Further, these findings identify-two psychological factors (disgust sensitivity and germ aversion) with malleable components that could be leveraged in developing vaccine uptake interventions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed and implemented the v-safe after vaccination health checker (v-safe) to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety and as an active surveillance supplement to existing CDC vaccine safety monitoring programs. V-safe allows persons who received COVID-19 vaccines to report on post-vaccination experiences and how symptoms affected their health at daily, weekly, and monthly timepoints after vaccination. Text message reminders are sent linking to Internet-based health check-in surveys. Surveys include questions to identify v-safe participants who may be eligible to enroll in a separate pregnancy registry activity that evaluates maternal and infant outcomes in those pregnant at the time of vaccination or receiving vaccine in the periconception period. We describe the development of and enhancements to v-safe, data management, promotion and communication to vaccination sites and partners, publications, strengths and limitations, and implications for future systems. We also describe enrollment in v-safe over time and demographics of persons participating in v-safe during the first year of operation (December 14, 2020 - December 13, 2021). During this time, 9,342,582 persons submitted 131,543,087 v-safe surveys. The majority of participants were female (62.3 %) and non-Hispanic White (61.2 %); median age was 49.0 years. Most participants reported receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as their first recorded dose (95.0 %). V-safe contributed to CDC's vaccine safety assessments for FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines by enabling near real-time reporting of reactogenicity once the COVID-19 vaccination program began in the community, encouraging reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and facilitating enrollment in a large post-vaccination pregnancy registry. Given that v-safe is an integral component of the most comprehensive safety monitoring program in U.S. history, we believe that this approach has promise as a potential application for future pandemic response activities as well as rollout of novel vaccines in a non-pandemic context., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Recent research underscores the exceptionally young age distribution of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. compared with that of international peers. This paper characterizes how high levels of COVID-19 mortality at midlife ages (45-64 years) are deeply intertwined with continuing racial inequity in COVID-19 mortality., Methods: Mortality data from Minnesota in 2020-2022 were analyzed in June 2022. Death certificate data (COVID-19 deaths N=12,771) and published vaccination rates in Minnesota allow vaccination and mortality rates to be observed with greater age and temporal precision than national data., Results: Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults aged <65 years were all more highly vaccinated than White populations of the same ages during most of Minnesota's substantial and sustained Delta surge and all the subsequent Omicron surges. However, White mortality rates were lower than those of all other groups. These disparities were extreme; at midlife ages (ages 45-64 years), during the Omicron period, more highly vaccinated populations had COVID-19 mortality that was 164% (Asian-American), 115% (Hispanic), or 208% (Black) of White COVID-19 mortality at these ages. In Black, Indigenous, and People of Color populations as a whole, COVID-19 mortality at ages 55-64 years was greater than White mortality at 10 years older., Conclusions: This discrepancy between vaccination and mortality patterning by race/ethnicity suggests that if the current period is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, it also remains a pandemic of the disadvantaged in ways that can decouple from vaccination rates. This result implies an urgent need to center health equity in the development of COVID-19 policy measures., (Copyright © 2022 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Share buybacks, when a corporation buys back its own shares, are recognised as having potentially harmful impacts on society. This includes by contributing to economic inequalities, and by impeding investments with the potential to protect and promote the welfare of various stakeholders. Share buybacks, however, have received minimal analytical attention in the public health literature. This paper aimed to explore the potential influence of share buybacks on population health and health inequity using a socio-ecological determinants of health lens., Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of share buybacks made by corporations listed on United States (US) stock exchanges between 1982 and 2021, using quantitative data sourced from Compustat. We examined annual trends in share buyback expenditure, including comparisons to dividend, net income, capital expenditure, and research and development expenditure data. We then purposively sampled a set of corporations to provide illustrative examples of how share buybacks potentially influence key socio-ecological determinants of health. The examples were: i) three COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers; ii) five of the world's largest fossil fuel corporations; and iii) US car manufacturer General Motors. For these, we conducted an analysis of data from Compustat, company reports and grey literature materials, focusing on key sources of profits and their allocation to share buybacks and particular investments., Results: US-listed corporations spent an estimated US$9.2 trillion in real terms on share buybacks between 2012 and 2021 (nearly 12 times more than from 1982 to 1991). The contribution of share buybacks to total shareholder 'returns' increased from 11% in 1982 to 55% in 2021, with expenditure on shareholder returns increasing considerably relative to capital, research and development expenditure over this period. The three examples illustrated how some corporations have prioritised the short-term financial interests of their shareholders, including via implementing large share buyback programs, over investments with considerable potential to protect and promote the public's health., Conclusion: The potentially substantial impacts of share buybacks on health warrant increased research and policy attention. Arguably, more must be done to regulate share buybacks as part of efforts to address the corporate drivers of ill-health and inequity., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Monitoring safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical for understanding vaccine safety especially when used in key populations such as elderly persons age 65 years and older who can benefit greatly from vaccination. We present new findings from a nationally representative early warning system that may expand the safety knowledge base to further public trust and inform decision making on vaccine safety by government agencies, healthcare providers, interested stakeholders, and the public., Methods: We evaluated 14 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data covering 30,712,101 elderly persons. The CMS data from December 11, 2020 through Jan 15, 2022 included 17,411,342 COVID-19 vaccinees who received a total of 34,639,937 doses. We conducted weekly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination., Findings: Four outcomes met the threshold for a statistical signal following BNT162b2 vaccination including pulmonary embolism (PE; RR = 1.54), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; RR = 1.42), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC; RR = 1.91), and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP; RR = 1.44). After further evaluation, only the RR for PE still met the statistical threshold for a signal; however, the RRs for AMI, DIC, and ITP no longer did. No statistical signals were identified following vaccination with either the mRNA-1273 or Ad26 COV2.S vaccines., Interpretation: This early warning system is the first to identify temporal associations for PE, AMI, DIC, and ITP following BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly. Because an early warning system does not prove that the vaccines cause these outcomes, more robust epidemiologic studies with adjustment for confounding, including age and nursing home residency, are underway to further evaluate these signals. FDA strongly believes the potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks of COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Nigeria began administering COVID-19 vaccines on 5 March 2021 and is working towards the WHO's African regional goal to fully vaccinate 70% of their eligible population by December 2022. Nigeria's COVID-19 vaccination information system includes a surveillance system for COVID-19 adverse events following immunisation (AEFI), but as of April 2021, AEFI data were being collected and managed by multiple groups and lacked routine analysis and use for action. To fill this gap in COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, between April 2021 and June 2022, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in collaboration with other implementing partners led by the Institute of Human Virology Nigeria, supported the Government of Nigeria to triangulate existing COVID-19 AEFI data. This paper describes the process of implementing published draft guidelines for data triangulation for COVID-19 AEFI data in Nigeria. Here, we focus on the process of implementing data triangulation rather than analysing the results and impacts of triangulation. Work began by mapping the flow of COVID-19 AEFI data, engaging stakeholders and building a data management system to intake and store all shared data. These datasets were used to create an online dashboard with key indicators selected based on existing WHO guidelines and national guidance. The dashboard went through an iterative review before dissemination to stakeholders. This case study highlights a successful example of implementing data triangulation for rapid use of AEFI data for decision-making and emphasises the importance of stakeholder engagement and strong data governance structures to make data triangulation successful., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The success of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 implies that this technology can be applied to target any pathogen. However, the scientific production and research trends using the bibliometric method are still unknown. The top 100 most cited articles on mRNA vaccine research were obtained from the Scopus database from 1995 to 2021. Bibliometrix, an R -Package, and VOSviewer 1.6.11 were used for data analysis. There is a rapid growth in scientific outputs with a gradual increase in 2021. The United States produced 45 (45%) of the articles, followed by Germany with 15 (15%) and Israel with 10 (10%). The New England Journal of Medicine published the most papers in this field 13 (13%), followed by Nature 6(6%). Barney S. Graham was the most productive author among the top 100 most cited mRNA vaccine articles. University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, US, was the top ranking institution, having 37 (37%). The visualization map clearly and spontaneously displayed the current state and research hot spots of mRNA research from a specific perspective. The most frequent keywords were COVID-19, vaccine, mRNA vaccine, mRNA, SARS-CoV-2, and immunogenicity, among others. A systematic review of the articles provided evidence that out of 100 articles, approximately 25 (25%) were focused on vaccine production and evaluation, followed by 26 (26%) in mRNA vaccine safety and efficacy, 23 (23%) were into mRNA vaccination, 23 (23%) considered risk factors associated with mRNA vaccination, while 8 (8%) of the articles covered the issue of mRNA vaccine delivery. In addition, 42% of the articles focused on COVID-19, 17% on cancer, 8% on influenza virus, 4% on COVID-19 and kidney disease, 3% COVID-19 and myocarditis, and 3% on rabies virus, among others. The findings of this systematic and thematic analysis provided the knowledge basis for further research on mRNA vaccines globally.

Background: Knowing the settings where children ages 5-17 years received COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, and how settings changed over time and varied by socio-demographics, is of interest for planning and implementing vaccination programs., Methods: Data from the National Immunization Survey-Child COVID-19 Module (NIS-CCM) were analyzed to assess place of COVID-19 vaccination among vaccinated children ages 5-17 years. Interviews from July 2021 thru May 2022 were included in the analyses for a total of n = 39,286 vaccinated children. The percentage of children receiving their COVID-19 vaccine at each type of setting was calculated overall, by sociodemographic characteristics, and by month of receipt of COVID-19 vaccine., Results: Among vaccinated children ages 5-11 years, 46.9 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 37.1 % at a pharmacy, 8.1 % at a school, 4.7 % at a mass vaccination site, and 3.2 % at some other non-medical place. Among vaccinated children ages 12-17 years, 35.1 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 47.9 % at a pharmacy, 8.3 % at a mass vaccination site, 4.8 % at a school, and 4.0 % at some other non-medical place. The place varied by time among children ages 12-17 years but minimally for children ages 5-11 years. There was variability in the place of COVID-19 vaccination by age, race/ethnicity, health insurance, urbanicity, and region., Conclusion: Children ages 5-17 years predominantly received their COVID-19 vaccinations at pharmacies and medical places. The large proportion of vaccinated children receiving vaccination at pharmacies is indicative of the success in the United States of expanding the available settings where children could be vaccinated. Medical places continue to play a large role in vaccinating children, especially younger children, and should continue to stock COVID-19 vaccine to keep it available for those who are not yet vaccinated, including the newly recommended group of children < 5 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new disease that has led to a worldwide pandemic, resulting in millions of deaths and a high economic burden. Here, we analyze the current status of preventive vaccines authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Published clinical trials have shown the effectiveness of mRNA (BNT162b2 and Spikevax), adenovirus vector-based (Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and recombinant protein S (NVX-CoV2373) vaccines to be between 52.9% and 100%. The most-frequent adverse effects include local pain, fatigue, headache, or chills. Serious events are associated with Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Vaccine hesitancy remains a major barrier to ending the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (U.S.) and an important target for communication interventions. Using longitudinal survey data, we examined whether baseline levels and changes in beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines predicted change in vaccination intention/behaviour. Repeated measures were collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (n = 665) in July 2020 and April/June 2021. Linear regressions associated change in COVID-19 vaccination intention/behaviour with changes in beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines' safety, effectiveness in protecting others from infection, and effectiveness in protecting oneself from infection. Changes in beliefs from T1 to T2 were significantly associated with change in vaccination outcomes for all belief types (safety B = 0.39, SE = 0.07; effectiveness for self B = 0.38, SE = 0.09; effectiveness for others B = 0.43, SE = 0.07). Cross-lagged models suggested a reciprocal causal relationship between pro-vaccine beliefs and vaccination intention/behaviour: Intention to get vaccinated at T1 predicted strengthened safety and effectiveness beliefs at T2. T1 effectiveness beliefs predicted T2 vaccination intention/behaviour, though T1 safety beliefs did not. Communication interventions highlighting the protective benefits of COVID-19 vaccines may be particularly successful in reducing vaccine hesitancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Using 2021 data and information related to COVID‐19, this paper discusses the contribution of colonization, medical mistrust and racism to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is defined as 'delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability'. Colonization is described as the 'way the extractive economic system of capitalism came to the United States, supported by systems of supremacy and domination, which are a necessary part of keeping the wealth and power accumulated in the hands of the colonizers and ultimately their financiers'. The system of colonization results in policies and practices, including those related to health, that continue to create oppression and support racism. Persons experience trauma as the byproduct of colonization. Chronic stress and trauma create chronic inflammation and all diseases, whether genetic or lifestyle, have a common pathogenesis that is a component of inflammation. Medical mistrust is the absence of trust that healthcare providers and organizations genuinely care for patients' interests, are honest, practice confidentiality and have the competence to produce the best possible results. Finally, racism is described as everyday racism and perceived racism in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scant research exists on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among law enforcement officers, hindering health messaging development for officers and, by extension, the communities they serve. This paper's goal was to address this gap by providing the necessary data to better under hesitancy to guide training and policy interventions for officers. The objective was to conduct the first nationally representative survey of officers on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates. We collected data from February 2021 to March 2022 on officer COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and examined their responses in terms of sociodemographic factors, health status, and job characteristics. We found that 40% of officers were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. We found that officers with higher education, older officers, officers with more law enforcement experience, officers who received recent health checkups, and commanders (compared to line officers) were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. Critically, officers working in law enforcement agencies that provided masks for COVID-19 protection were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant (compared to agencies not providing masks). Ongoing research is needed to understand how evolving attitudes and barriers toward vaccination change over time for officers and to test messaging to better align officers with health guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using recent data on the unvaccinated population across US states, this paper focuses on the determinants of vaccine hesitancy related to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Findings show that more prosperous states and states with more elderly residents and more physicians have lower vaccine hesitancy. There was some evidence of the significance of race, but internet access and history of other contagious diseases failed to make a difference. States with centralized health systems and those with mask mandates generally had a lower percentage of unvaccinated populations. Finally, the presence of Democrats in state legislatures tended to lower vaccination hesitancies, ceteris paribus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been proved, they have not been explicitly associated with COVID-19 full vaccinations. This paper examines the spatial and temporal patterns of the county-level COVID-19 case rates, fatality rates, and full vaccination rates in the United States from December 24, 2020 through September 30, 2021. Statistical and geospatial analyses show clear temporal and spatial patterns of the progression of COVID-19 outcomes and vaccinations. In the relationship between two time series, the fatality rates series was positively related to past lags of the case rates series. At the same time, case rates series and fatality rates series were negatively related to past lags of the full vaccination rates series. The lag level varies across urban and rural areas. The results of partial correlation, ordinary least squares (OLS) and Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) also confirmed that the existing COVID-19 infections and different sets of socioeconomic, healthcare access, health conditions, and environmental characteristics were independently associated with COVID-19 vaccinations over time and space. These results empirically identify the geographic health disparities with COVID-19 vaccinations and outcomes and provide the evidentiary basis for targeting pandemic recovery and public health mitigation actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More than 130 million individuals in the United States have now received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Currently, all adults in the Unites States now have access to one of three COVID-19 vaccines. As part of the vaccination procedure, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) fact sheets, which contain information regarding the vaccine, are provided. The purpose of this study was to analyze the ease of reading (i.e., readability) of the EUA-approved fact sheets for the vaccines currently available in the United States, the V-Safe adverse event survey script, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website information on COVID-19 vaccines designed for the general public in the United States., Methods: We acquired the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen EUA fact sheets, as well as the V-Safe survey script and the CDC website information regarding COVID-19 vaccines. These documents were analyzed for their complexity regarding the following readability factors: average length of paragraphs, sentences, and words; font size and style; use of passive voice; the Gunning-Fog index; the Flesch Reading Ease index; and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index., Results: Only the V-Safe adverse-event survey script met readability standards for adequate comprehension. The mean readability scores of the EUA fact sheets and the CDC website were as follows: Flesch Reading Ease score (44.35 avg); Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (10.48 avg); and Gunning-Fog index (11.8 avg).These scores indicate that at least a 10th-grade level education would be required to understand these reading materials., Conclusion: The average person in the United States would have difficulty understanding the information provided in the EUA fact sheets and CDC COVID-19 vaccine website documents; however, the V-Safe survey was written at an adequate reading level. To ensure that the general public fully understands information regarding COVID-19 vaccines, greater care and effort should be given to the development of simplified information material., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite ongoing calls for a more even global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, there remains a great disparity between high- and low-income countries. We conducted representative surveys among the adult populations in the United States (N = 1,000) and Germany (N = 1,003) in June 2021 to assess public opinion in these countries on the distributive justice of COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted two instances of analytic hierarchy processes (AHP) to elicit how the public weighs different principles and criteria for vaccine allocation. In further discrete choice experiments, respondents were asked to split a limited supply of vaccine doses between a hypothetical high-income and a hypothetical low-income country. AHP weights in the United States and Germany were 37.4% (37.2-37.5) and 49.4% (49.2-49.5) for "medical urgency", 32.7% (32.6-32.8) and 25.4% (25.2-25.5) for "equal access for all", 13.7% (13.6-13.8) and 13.3% (13.2-13.4) for "production contribution", and 16.3% (16.2-16.4) and 12.0% (11.9-12.1) for "free market rules", respectively, with 95% CI shown in parentheses. In the discrete choice experiment, respondents in the United States and Germany split available vaccine doses such that the low-income country, which was three times more populous than the high-income country, on average received 53.9% (95% CI: 52.6-55.1) and 57.5% (95% CI: 56.3-58.7) of available doses, respectively. When faced with a dilemma where a vulnerable family member was waiting for a vaccine, 20.7% (95% CI: 18.2-23.3) of respondents in the United States and 18.2% (95% CI: 15.8-20.6) in Germany reduced the amount they allocated to the low-income country sufficiently to secure a vaccine for their family member. Our results indicate that the public in the United States and Germany favours utilitarian and egalitarian distribution principles of vaccines for COVID-19 over libertarian or meritocratic principles. This implies that political decisions favouring higher levels of redistribution would be supported by public opinion in these two countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: This paper describes the emergency, compassionate use of the COVID-19 vaccination for high-risk adolescents aged 12-15 years prior to approval by the American Food and Drugs Administration in May 2021. The target audience had underlying health conditions associated with severe disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or severely immunosuppressed household members., Methods: An orderly approval system was established in Israel for adolescents aged 12-15 years, based on a professional position paper and compassionate treatment regulations. From 12 February 2021, eligible adolescents were referred to the Israeli Ministry of Health for permission to vaccinate, via four health maintenance organisations. Data were collected about adverse events after vaccinations and the incidence of any cases of COVID-19., Results: By 15 March 2021, the vaccine had been approved for 607 adolescents: 333 had received one dose, and 92 had received two doses. The median age was 14.6 years, and the major indication was obesity. Only one child tested positive for the virus, 4 days after vaccination, and no adverse effects were recorded., Conclusion: The emergency use of COVID-19 vaccination for 333 adolescents aged 12-15, 92 of them with 2 doses, based on a position paper and compassionate treatment regulations, did not result in any adverse effects. Since 27 July 2021, the same process was further applied in Israel among younger children, aged 5-11, preceding formal release of the clinical trial., (© 2021 Foundation Acta Paediatrica. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Health disparities among racial and ethnic and socioeconomic groups are pervasive, and the COVID-19 pandemic has not been an exception. This study explores the key demographic and socioeconomic factors related to racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage., Methods: Using recent (January 2021-March 2021) data on adults from the U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey, a regression-based decomposition method was used to estimate how much of the observed racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage could be explained by particular socioeconomic and demographic factors (i.e., age, number of children and adults in household)., Results: Demographics, socioeconomic factors, and experiencing economic hardship during the pandemic each explained a statistically significant portion of vaccination coverage disparities between non-Hispanic White and racial/ethnic minority individuals. The largest disparity was observed among people who identified as Hispanic or Latino, whose vaccination coverage was 8.0 (95% CI=7.1, 8.9) percentage points lower than that of their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Socioeconomic factors explained 4.8 (95% CI=4.3, 5.2) percentage points of this disparity, and economic hardship explained an additional 1.4 (95% CI=1.2, 1.6) percentage points., Conclusions: This paper identified the key factors related to racial and ethnic disparities in adult vaccination coverage. The variables that explained the largest portions of the disparities were age, education, employment, and income. The study findings can help to inform efforts to increase equitable vaccine access and engage various segments of the population to prevent the further exacerbation of COVID-19 health disparities., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)