Search

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide the best opportunity to control the pandemic. Having safe and efficacious vaccines available is only half the equation; people must also take them. We describe a study to identify COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, values and intentions immediately preceding authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in the US. METHODS: A national panel survey was conducted to measure intent to receive COVID-19 vaccines as well as disease and vaccine attitudes, values and trust in local, state and federal public health authorities. RESULTS: Greater than 80% of respondents reported confidence they could adhere to COVID recommendations such as mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The majority of respondents (70%) reported believing that current drugs were somewhat or very good at treating COVID-19 infection. Vaccine intent fell into three groups: Intenders (50%), Wait and Learn (40%), and Unlikelys (10%). Intent to get vaccinated was substantially lower among African American (32%), and higher among men (56%), those over 60 years of age (61%), those with a Bachelor's degree or higher (63%), and Democrats (63%). The Wait and Learn group, compared to the Intenders, were less likely to report being diagnosed with a high risk condition for COVID-19, receiving an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, discussing COVID-19 vaccine with their healthcare provider, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, considering a COVID-19 vaccine important to stop the spread of infection, and wering a mask usually or almost always. CONCLUSION: Only half of US adults intend to accept COVID-19 vaccines; most others (40%) are uncertain. Levels of immunity associated with community protection will not be achieved without reaching those who are currently uncertain. Characterizing COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions and ascertaining values and trust in local, state, and federal public health authorities that impact vaccine decision-making are essential.

Infectious disease outbreaks highlight the importance of trust in public health authorities to avoid fear and improve adherence to recommendations. There is currently no established and validated measure for trust in public health authorities. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures trust in public health authorities and to assess the association between trust in public health authorities and vaccine attitudes. We developed 20 items to measure trust in public health authorities. After implementing a survey in January 2020, we investigated relationships between the items, reduced the number of items, and identified latent constructs of the scale. We assessed variability in trust and how trust was associated with vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported vaccine acceptance. The pool was reduced to a 14-item trust in public health authorities scale and we found that this trust model was strongly associated with acceptance of vaccines. Our scale can be used to examine the relationship between trust in public health authorities and adherence to public health recommendations. The measure needs to be validated in other settings to determine whether they are associated with other areas where the public question public health authority recommendations.

The US response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been plagued with politics driving public health and messaging. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine rollout is occurring in an environment ill equipped to achieve broad acceptance of the vaccine. Addressing public concerns unlocks the potential for high vaccine coverage; this is best achieved when science and values, not politics, inform public health. A multifaceted and thorough engagement and communication plan that is responsive to the concerns and values of different groups must be swiftly yet carefully implemented in a coordinated manner by federal, state, and local governments. Effective communication will require rapid and rigorous science to promptly differentiate between adverse events following immunization that are causally related versus simply coincidental. Health care providers, in particular, will need support to process the otherwise potentially overwhelming amount of relevant information and effectively integrate it into discussions with their patients to support their decision making. An equitable COVID-19 immunization program could substantively reduce the disproportionate risks associated with this pandemic.

Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics). Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes. Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported. Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics’ implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics’ benefits.

Scientists are trained to be skeptical and not overstate the existing evidence. This cautiousness is a valuable asset when working in scientific research, where the goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. It becomes a handicap when scientists are asked to communicate to the public about pressing topics such as COVID-19 vaccines. Often in such contexts, immediate recommendations are sought, and decisions must be made even when complete evidence is lacking. For scientists to be effective public communicators, they must adjust their mindset and embrace brevity, clarity, and other principles of effective communication. Focusing messages on what is known fosters public confidence in taking needed actions, whereas focusing on what is still unknown fosters inaction and seeds doubt. The implementation of principles of effective communication does not inherently conflict with maintaining scientific accuracy and acknowledging uncertainty, but it does require additional care, effort, and training.

Limited studies are available on how decisions and perceptions on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have changed since the start of vaccination availability. We performed a qualitative study to identify factors critical to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decision making and how perspectives evolved among African American/Black, Native American, and Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and social and economic disadvantage. We conducted 16 virtual meetings, with 232 participants in wave 1 meetings (December 2020) and with 206 returning participants in wave 2 meetings (January and February 2021). Wave 1 vaccine concerns in all communities included information needs, vaccine safety, and speed of vaccine development. Lack of trust in government and the pharmaceutical industry was influential, particularly among African American/Black and Native American participants. Participants showed more willingness to get vaccinated at wave 2 than at wave 1, indicating that many of their information needs had been addressed. Hesitancy remained greater among African American/Black and Native American participants than among Hispanic participants. Participants in all groups indicated that conversations tailored to their community and with those most trustworthy to them would be helpful. To overcome vaccine hesitancy, we propose a model of fully considered SARS-CoV-2 vaccine decision making, whereby public health departments supply information, align with community values and recognize lived experiences, offer support for decision making, and make vaccination easy and convenient.

Objective: We characterize public values regarding vaccinomics, which aims to improve vaccine safety and effectiveness using genomics. Methods: Panel survey (2020) of ≥18-year-olds with embedded animation introduced vaccinomics. Sociodemographic, health, and vaccination-related items were adapted from validated scales. Novel items measured trust in public health authorities, vaccinomics-related values, and preferences for federal funding: vaccinomics compared with vaccine issues and chronic diseases. Beginning and end of survey confidence in vaccine safety was measured to assess potential changes. Data were weighted to the U.S. Census. Vaccinomics-related concerns were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy status (composite outcome), reported serious vaccine reactions, and trust in public health authorities (PHA). Log binomial regression models estimated associations between these variables and agency to make vaccine-related decisions. Results: Most (70.7%, N = 1,925) respondents expected vaccinomics would increase their vaccine confidence compared to now. Agreement was highest among those without serious vaccine reaction experience (unexperienced: 74.2% versus experienced: 62.3%), with high trust in PHA (high: 83.3% versus low: 57.4%), and low vaccine hesitancy among parents of teenagers (low: 78.8% versus high: 62.5%) and adults without minor children (low: 79.8% versus high: 60.6%; all p

The US response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been plagued with politics driving public health and messaging. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine rollout is occurring in an environment ill equipped to achieve broad acceptance of the vaccine. Addressing public concerns unlocks the potential for high vaccine coverage; this is best achieved when science and values, not politics, inform public health. A multifaceted and thorough engagement and communication plan that is responsive to the concerns and values of different groups must be swiftly yet carefully implemented in a coordinated manner by federal, state, and local governments. Effective communication will require rapid and rigorous science to promptly differentiate between adverse events following immunization that are causally related versus simply coincidental. Health care providers, in particular, will need support to process the otherwise potentially overwhelming amount of relevant information and effectively integrate it into discussions with their patients to support their decision making. An equitable COVID-19 immunization program could substantively reduce the disproportionate risks associated with this pandemic.

Highlights • A thoughtful vaccination campaign is critical to ensure COVID-19 vaccine uptake. • Social, behavioral, and communication science is essential to such a campaign. • Meaningful messages from trusted spokespersons can crowd out misinformation. • COVID-19 vaccines must be available at familiar, convenient locations that feel safe. • Transparent decisions and public oversight mechanisms strengthen vaccine confidence., Given the social and economic upheavals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, political leaders, health officials, and members of the public are eager for solutions. One of the most promising, if they can be successfully developed, is vaccines. While the technological development of such countermeasures is currently underway, a key social gap remains. Past experience in routine and crisis contexts demonstrates that uptake of vaccines is more complicated than simply making the technology available. Vaccine uptake, and especially the widespread acceptance of vaccines, is a social endeavor that requires consideration of human factors. To provide a starting place for this critical component of a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States, the 23-person Working Group on Readying Populations for COVID-19 Vaccines was formed. One outcome of this group is a synthesis of the major challenges and opportunities associated with a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign and empirically-informed recommendations to advance public understanding of, access to, and acceptance of vaccines that protect against SARS-CoV-2. While not inclusive of all possible steps than could or should be done to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination, the working group believes that the recommendations provided are essential for a successful vaccination program.

Background: The Delta COVID-19 variant caused a resurgence in cases and deaths during the summer of 2021, particularly among the unvaccinated, highlighting the need to increase vaccine coverage. We describe a survey conducted in September 2021, in the midst of the Delta variant surge, after the FDA fully approved Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for ages 16+ and issued an emergency use authorization for ages 12–15. Methods and Findings: US adults were surveyed to measure COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities. More than three-quarters (77%) reported receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Of the unvaccinated, 6% intended to vaccinate, 40% were unlikely to ever vaccinate, and 55% remained uncertain. Most of the unvaccinated were