Search

The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of childhood vaccination disruption and to determine the predictors of delaying childhood vaccinations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among Indonesian parents. We conducted a nationwide, online, cross-sectional study. A set of questionnaires assessed the disruption of childhood vaccinations and possible explanatory variables, including demographic characteristics, current underlying disease, exposure to and confidence in COVID-19 information, perceived risk, attitude and practice on vaccination, and COVID-19 prevention practice. A multivariable linear regression was used to characterize the relationship between explanatory variables and delayed childhood vaccination. We included 1137 respondents for analysis, of which 52.6% were males and 58.4% participants aged between 31 and 50-years old. Disruption of childhood vaccination service in local health facilities was reported in 42.2% (480/1137) of respondents and 13.3% (193/1137) of respondents explained that their children could not be vaccinated because a healthcare facility temporary stopped the vaccination service. Of all respondents, 312 (27.4%) delayed vaccinating their children for a compulsory vaccination shot. Factors associated with higher odds of delaying compulsory vaccinations for children were employment and chronic disease status, flu vaccination status in the past year, and prior COVID-19 infection. In conclusion, there was a significant disruption of childhood vaccination practices in Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not only due to healthcare closures but also due to parents’ practice - delaying the compulsory childhood vaccination for their children. We urge the government to strengthen strategies to ensure childhood vaccination services are available to all children in the country during a pandemic.

Most research on vaccine hesitancy has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination, but it will be important to understand dimensions of vaccine hesitancy in the adult population as more adult vaccines are introduced in the future. We modified the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to target adult vaccines and provide measures of its reliability and validity relative to influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in cross-sectional internet surveys in the United States and in China. We assessed the impact of vaccine hesitancy on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination using multivariable regression modeling, which informed concurrent validity of the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS). Among 1103 participants in the March 2020 China survey, 5.4% would not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas this figure was 18.8% for the March 2020 US survey and 27.3% for the June 2020 US survey. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency in all three surveys. Models adjusted for age, gender and income level show that prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those who scored higher on the VHS than those who scored lower on all three surveys. Prevalence of past and future flu vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those with higher aVHS scores than those with lower scores. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is lower in those with higher vaccine hesitancy scores, which supports the scale's concurrent validity. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency, making it a valid and reliable tool for measuring vaccination uptake.

In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, much of the US was placed under social distancing guidelines during March 2020. We characterized risk perceptions and adherence to social distancing recommendations in March 2020 among US adults aged 18+ in an online survey with age and gender quotas to match the general US population (N = 713). We used multivariable logistic and linear regression to estimate associations between age (by generational cohort) and these outcomes. The median perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 within the next month was 32%, and 65% of individuals were practicing more social distancing than before the outbreak. Baby Boomers had lower perceived risk than Millennials (-10.6%, 95% CI: -16.2%, -5.0%), yet were more frequently social distancing (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.56). Public health outreach should focus on raising compliance with social distancing recommendations, especially among high risk groups. Efforts to address risk perceptions alone may be inadequate.