Search

Widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination is vital to curtailing the pandemic, yet rates remain suboptimal in the U.S. Vaccine mandates have previously been successful, but are controversial. An April 2021 survey of a nationally representative sample (N = 1208) examined vaccine uptake, attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Sixty-seven percent were vaccine acceptors, 14% wait-and-see, and 19% non-acceptors. Compared to wait-and-see and non-acceptors, acceptors were more likely to have a household member over age 65, have received a flu shot, have positive COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and view COVID-19 vaccination as beneficial. Mandate support was higher among respondents who were vaccine acceptors, had positive views about COVID-19 vaccines, believed in COVID-19 preventive strategies, perceived COVID-19 as severe, were liberal, resided in the Northeast, were non-White, and had incomes < $75,000. Public health campaigns should target attitudes that appear to drive hesitancy and prepare for varying mandate support based on demographics, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and the scope of the mandate., Author(s): Julen N. Harris [sup.1] [sup.2] , Christine Mauro [sup.3] , Jane A. Andresen [sup.1] , Gregory D. Zimet [sup.4] , Susan L. Rosenthal [sup.1] [sup.5] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.239585.0, [...]

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence among the most pressing issues in global health. The COVID-19 pandemic has made vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence particularly salient and urgent. The purpose of this special issue is to highlight a broad range of perspectives on these critical issues. We have included a total of 30 papers that address issues related to vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence across multiple levels of the Socio-Ecological Model. We have organized the empirical papers into the following sections: individual-level beliefs, minority health and health disparities, social media and conspiracy beliefs, and interventions. In addition to the empirical papers, three commentaries are included in this special issue., Author(s): Austin S. Baldwin [sup.1] , Jasmin A. Tiro [sup.2] , Gregory D. Zimet [sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.263864.d, 0000 0004 1936 7929, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, , [...]

ObjectiveHealthcare providers (HCPs) are advised to give all parents a strong recommendation for HPV vaccination. However, it is possible that strong recommendations could be less effective at promoting vaccination among African Americans who on average have greater mistrust in the healthcare system. This study examines the associations of parental trust in HCPs and strength of HCP vaccination recommendation on HPV vaccine acceptance among African American parents.MethodsParticipants were recruited from an urban, academic medical center between July 2012 and July 2014. We surveyed 400 African American parents of children ages 10-12years who were offered HPV vaccine by their HCPs to assess sociodemographic factors, vaccine beliefs, trust in HCPs, and the HPV vaccine recommendation received. Medical records were reviewed to determine vaccination receipt.ResultsIn multivariable analysis, children whose parents were "very strongly" recommended the HPV vaccine had over four times higher odds of vaccine receipt compared with those whose parents were "not very strongly" recommended the vaccine. Having a parent with "a lot of" versus "none" or only "some" trust in HCPs was associated with over twice the odds of receiving HPV vaccine. Very strong HCP recommendations were associated with higher odds of vaccination among all subgroups, including those with more negative baseline attitudes toward HPV vaccine and those with lower levels of trust. Adding the variables strength of HCP recommendation and parental trust in HCPs to a multivariable model already adjusted for sociodemographic factors and parental vaccine beliefs improved the pseudo R2 from 0.52 to 0.55.ConclusionsAmong participants, receiving a strong vaccine recommendation and having a higher level of trust in HCPs were associated with higher odds of HPV vaccination, but did not add much to the predictive value of a model that already adjusted for baseline personal beliefs and sociodemographic factors.

BackgroundDespite the high burden of new HIV infections in minor adolescents, they are often excluded from biomedical HIV prevention trials, largely owing to the ethical complexities of obtaining consent for enrollment. Researchers and ethics regulators have a duty to protect adolescents—as a special category of human subjects, they must have protection that extends beyond those afforded to all human subjects. Typically, additional protection includes parental consent for enrollment. However, parental consent can present a risk of harm for minor adolescents. Research involving minor adolescents indicate that they are unwilling to join biomedical trials for stigmatized health problems, such as HIV, when parental consent is required. This presents a significant barrier to progress in adolescent HIV prevention by creating delays in research and the translation of new scientific evidence generated in biomedical trials in adult populations. ObjectiveThis protocol aims to examine how parental involvement in the consent process affects the acceptability of hypothetical participation in biomedical HIV prevention trials from the perspectives of minor adolescents and parents of minor adolescents. MethodsIn this protocol, we use a quasi-experimental design that involves a simulated consent process for 2 different HIV prevention trials. The first trial is modeled after an open-label study of the use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as preexposure prophylaxis for HIV. The second trial is modeled after a phase IIa trial of an injectable HIV integrase inhibitor. There are 2 groups in the study—minor adolescents aged 14 to 17 years, inclusive, and parents of minor adolescents in the same age range. The adolescent participants are randomized to 1 of 3 consent conditions with varying degrees of parental involvement. After undergoing a simulated consent process, they rate their willingness to participate (WTP) in each of the 2 trials if offered the opportunity. The primary outcome is WTP, given the consent condition. Parents undergo a similar process but are asked to rate the acceptability of each of the 3 consent conditions. The primary outcome is acceptability of the consent method for enrollment. The secondary outcomes include the following: capacity to consent among both participant groups, the prevalence of medical mistrust, and the effects of the study phase (eg, phase IIa vs the open-label study) and drug administration route (eg, oral vs injection) on WTP (adolescents) and acceptability (parents) of the consent method. ResultsEnrollment began in April 2018 and ended mid-September 2019. Data are being analyzed and dissemination is expected in April 2020. ConclusionsThe study will provide the needed empirical data about minor adolescents’ and parents’ perspectives on consent methods for minors. The evidence generated can be used to guide investigators and ethics regulators in the design of consent processes for biomedical HIV prevention trials. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/16509