Search

Multiple factors may influence parental vaccine hesitancy towards pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and routine childhood immunizations (RCIs). Using the United States National Immunization Survey—Child COVID Module data collected from parents/guardians of children aged 5–11 years, this cross-sectional study (1) identified the trends and prevalence estimates of parental hesitancy towards pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and RCIs, (2) examined the relationship between hesitancy towards pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and RCIs, and (3) assessed trends in parental hesitancy towards RCIs by sociodemographic characteristics and behavioral and social drivers of COVID-19 vaccination. From November 2021 to July 2022, 54,329 parents or guardians were interviewed. During this 9-month period, the proportion of parents hesitant about pediatric COVID-19 vaccines increased by 15.8 percentage points (24.8% to 40.6%). Additionally, the proportion of parents who reported RCIs hesitancy increased by 4.7 percentage points from November 2021 to May 2022 but returned to baseline by July 2022. Over nine months, parents' concerns about pediatric COVID-19 infections declined; however, parents were increasingly worried about pediatric COVID-19 vaccine safety and overall importance. Furthermore, pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was more prevalent among parents of children who were White (43.2%) versus Black (29.3%) or Hispanic (26.9%) and those residing in rural (51.3%) compared to urban (28.9%) areas. In contrast, RCIs hesitancy was higher among parents of children who were Black (32.0%) versus Hispanic (24.5%) or White (23.6%). Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 2–6 times as prevalent among parents who were RCIs hesitant compared to those who were RCIs non-hesitant. This positive correlation between parental hesitancy towards pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and RCIs was observed for all demographic and psychosocial factors for unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios. Parent–provider interactions should increase vaccine confidence, shape social norms, and facilitate behavior change to promote pediatric vaccination rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from the nationally representative National Immunization Survey (NIS), we applied conditional linear regression tree methodology to examine relationships between demographic and geographic factors and propensity of receiving various doses of COVID-19 vaccine over time; these analyses identified temporal changes in these relationships that heretofore had not been identified using conventional logistical regression methodologies. Three regression tree models were built using an R package, Recursive Partitioning for Modeling Survey (rpms), to examine propensities over time of receiving a (1) first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 mRNA primary vaccination series or single dose of the Janssen vaccine (vaccine initiation), (2) primary series completion, and (3) monovalent booster dose, using a conditional linear effect model. Persons ≥50 years were more likely to complete a primary series and receive a first booster dose; persons reporting having received non-COVID-19 vaccines recently were more likely to initiate vaccination, complete the primary series, and get a first booster dose; persons reporting having work or school requirements were more likely to complete the primary series. Persons not reporting having received non-COVID-19 vaccines in 2 years but reporting having work or school vaccination requirements were more likely to initiate vaccination than those without work/school requirements. Among persons not reporting having received non-COVID-19 vaccines in 2 years and not reporting having work or school vaccination requirements, those aged ≥50 years were more likely to initiate vaccination than were younger adults. Propensity of receiving various doses was correlated with age, having recently received non-COVID 19 vaccines, and having vaccination requirements at work or school. Regression tree methodology enabled modeling of different COVID-19 vaccination dose propensities as a linear effect of time, revealed changes in relationships over time between demographic factors and propensity of receipt of different doses, and identified populations that may benefit from vaccination outreach efforts., 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.)

Since 1994, the U.S. Vaccines for Children (VFC) program has covered the cost of vaccines for children whose families might not otherwise be able to afford vaccines. This report assessed and quantified the health benefits and economic impact of routine U.S. childhood immunizations among both VFC-eligible and non-VFC-eligible children born during 1994-2023. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine; Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine; oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines; measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; hepatitis B vaccine; varicella vaccine; pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; hepatitis A vaccine; and rotavirus vaccine were included. Averted illnesses and deaths and associated costs over the lifetimes of 30 annual cohorts of children born during 1994-2023 were estimated using established economic models. Net savings were calculated from the payer and societal perspectives. Among approximately 117 million children born during 1994-2023, routine childhood vaccinations will have prevented approximately 508 million lifetime cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1,129,000 deaths, at a net savings of $540 billion in direct costs and $2.7 trillion in societal costs. From both payer and societal perspectives, routine childhood vaccinations among children born during 1994-2023 resulted in substantial cost savings. Childhood immunizations continue to provide substantial health and economic benefits, while promoting health equity., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Two doses of JYNNEOS vaccine are effective in preventing many mpox cases and can reduce the severity of symptoms in infected persons. However, infections among fully vaccinated persons can occur. During May 2022-May 2024, a total of 271 mpox cases among fully vaccinated persons were reported to CDC from 27 U.S. jurisdictions. These reported infections are estimated to have occurred in <1% of fully vaccinated persons. Compared with cases among unvaccinated persons, infections among fully vaccinated persons were more likely to occur among non-Hispanic White men aged 30-39 years, were associated with increased numbers of sexual partners, and resulted in less severe disease (p<0.001). Among infections in fully vaccinated persons with complete data, infections after vaccination were reported more commonly after receipt of heterologous (subcutaneous and intradermal) (46%) or homologous subcutaneous (32%) JYNNEOS vaccination than after homologous intradermal (22%) vaccination. Disparate time intervals from vaccination to infection among fully vaccinated persons suggest that immunity is not waning. The median interval between the second vaccine dose and illness onset was longer for cases among persons who had received 2 intradermal doses (median = 363 days; IQR = 221-444 days) compared with cases in persons who had received 2 subcutaneous doses (median = 263 days; IQR = 47-334 days) (p<0.001). The implications of this finding are not known; however, these data should increase confidence in the effectiveness of vaccine doses that were administered intradermally, the preferred method of administration during the peak of the outbreak when vaccine supply was limited. Persons recommended to receive the JYNNEOS vaccine should receive 2 doses, irrespective of the route of administration, and at this time, additional doses are not recommended for the affected population., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.