25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Vaccine–Related Attitudes and Beliefs in Canada: National Cross-sectional Survey and Cluster Analysis

      research-article
      , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , , , MSc 3 , , PhD 3 , , PhD 4 , , PhD 3 , , MPA, MD 5 , , PhD 6 , , MSc, MD 2 , , PhD 7 , , MD, PhD 8 , , MPA, MA, MD 9 , , MSc 2 , , BHSc 2 , , MSc, MD 1 , 2 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , MD 2 , , MSc, MD 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
      JMIR Publications
      coronavirus, COVID-19, public health, marketing, behavior, risk reduction, attitudes, compliance, vaccine, hesitancy, risk, belief, communication, cross-sectional, Canada, gender, education, income, race, ethnicity

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There are concerns that vaccine hesitancy may impede COVID-19 vaccine rollout and prevent the achievement of herd immunity. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite their availability.

          Objective

          We aimed to identify which people are more and less likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy to inform public health messaging.

          Methods

          A Canadian cross-sectional survey was conducted in Canada in October and November 2020, prior to the regulatory approval of the COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by respondents answering the question “what would you do if a COVID-19 vaccine were available to you?” Negative binomial regression was used to identify the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Cluster analysis was performed to identify distinct clusters based on intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine, beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, and adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions.

          Results

          Of 4498 participants, 2876 (63.9%) reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with (1) younger age (18-39 years), (2) lower education, and (3) non-Liberal political leaning. Participants that reported vaccine hesitancy were less likely to believe that a COVID-19 vaccine would end the pandemic or that the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine outweighed the risks. Individuals with vaccine hesitancy had higher prevalence of being concerned about vaccine side effects, lower prevalence of being influenced by peers or health care professionals, and lower prevalence of trust in government institutions.

          Conclusions

          These findings can be used to inform targeted public health messaging to combat vaccine hesitancy as COVID-19 vaccine administration continues. Messaging related to preventing COVID among friends and family, highlighting the benefits, emphasizing safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, and ensuring that health care workers are knowledgeable and supported in their vaccination counselling may be effective for vaccine-hesitant populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

            The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine

              Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 61.4% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer’s advice to do so.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JPH
                JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2369-2960
                December 2021
                23 December 2021
                23 December 2021
                : 7
                : 12
                : e30424
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary, AB Canada
                [2 ] Department of Community Health Sciences University of Calgary Calgary, AB Canada
                [3 ] Department of Economics University of Calgary Calgary, AB Canada
                [4 ] Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary Calgary, AB Canada
                [5 ] Department of Family and Community Medicine University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada
                [6 ] School of Public Policy and Department of Political Sciences University of Calgary Calgary, AB Canada
                [7 ] School of Health Administration Dalhousie University Halifax, NS Canada
                [8 ] Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care Women's College Hospital Toronto, ON Canada
                [9 ] School of Public Health and Health Policy City University of New York New York, NY United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Jamie L Benham jlbenham@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2233-4613
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9502-7286
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6467-2573
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-3892
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6685-8075
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3280-361X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-6572
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4228-5756
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8408-674X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-2435
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-4506
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8345-2859
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8569-5953
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-6127
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-8008
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6548-3985
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0268-4680
                Article
                v7i12e30424
                10.2196/30424
                8709417
                34779784
                4cd5ebec-e9fb-4e57-9280-7d8dee6a27e7
                ©Jamie L Benham, Omid Atabati, Robert J Oxoby, Mehdi Mourali, Blake Shaffer, Hasan Sheikh, Jean-Christophe Boucher, Cora Constantinescu, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Noah M Ivers, Scott C Ratzan, Madison M Fullerton, Theresa Tang, Braden J Manns, Deborah A Marshall, Jia Hu, Raynell Lang. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 23.12.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 13 May 2021
                : 5 August 2021
                : 7 October 2021
                : 11 November 2021
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                coronavirus,covid-19,public health,marketing,behavior,risk reduction,attitudes,compliance,vaccine,hesitancy,risk,belief,communication,cross-sectional,canada,gender,education,income,race,ethnicity

                Comments

                Comment on this article