22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-making Factors in Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities in Los Angeles, California

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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.

          Key Points

          Question

          What factors do members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity in Los Angeles County, California, cite as influencing vaccine decision-making and acceptability?

          Findings

          In this qualitative study, 70 participants from racial and ethnic minority communities in Los Angeles County described a complex vaccination decision-making process influenced by misinformation and politicization, deep apprehension related to historical inequity and mistreatment, access barriers related to social disadvantage, and a need for community engagement and trusted messengers.

          Meaning

          This study suggests that COVID-19 vaccine equity will require multifaceted policies and programming that respect community concerns and the need for informed deliberation, invest in community-based engagement, improve accessibility and transparency of information, and reduce structural barriers in vaccination.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19–related disparities.

          Objective

          To examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Themes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization’s Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories.

          Results

          A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access. Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require multifaceted, multilevel policy approaches that improve COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, enhance trust, and address the complex interplay of sociocultural and structural barriers to vaccination.

          Abstract

          This qualitative study conducted virtual focus groups to explore barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine readiness reported by members of disproportionately affected multiethnic communities in Los Angeles County, California.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

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

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

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

            Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

            Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
              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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                30 September 2021
                September 2021
                30 September 2021
                : 4
                : 9
                : e2127582
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
                [2 ]Department of Family Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
                [3 ]Division of Infectious Disease, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
                [4 ]Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, California
                [5 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
                [7 ]Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles
                [8 ]Institute for Society & Genetics, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Los Angeles
                [9 ]Institute for Precision Health, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 23, 2021.
                Published: September 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27582
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Carson SL et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Savanna L. Carson, PhD, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 1100 Glendon, Ste 1820, Los Angeles, CA 90095 ( scarson@ 123456mednet.ucla.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Carson had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Morris, Barron, Ntekume, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Garrison, Brown.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Barron, Ntekume, Landovitz, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Morris, Ntekume, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Barron, Ntekume, Landovitz, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Garrison.
                Statistical analysis: Carson, Mansfield.
                Obtained funding: Carson, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Brown.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Morris, Barron, Ntekume, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.
                Supervision: Carson, Casillas, Landovitz, Vassar, Norris, Brown.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Carson, Brown, Morris, Castellon, Casillas, and Garrison and Ms Vassar reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and the UCLA Oversight COVID-19 Research Committee during the conduct of the study. Dr Ntekume reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and the UCLA Oversight COVID-19 Research Committee during the conduct of the study. Dr Landovitz reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck Inc, Roche, and Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr Norris reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study and grants from National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This research is supported by grant 21-312-0217571-66106L from CEAL/STOP COVID-19 CA, grant UL1TR001881 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and grant OCRC 20-51 from UCLA.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The supporters of this study had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: The study participants, our Community Advisory Board, the UCLA Community Consultants Panel, and our community partners supported recruitment or provided feedback on preliminary results. We thank the diverse communities we come from and are embedded within that shape, influence, and guide our research approach in culturally congruent ways.
                Article
                zoi210802
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27582
                8485164
                34591103
                b63942ee-f187-4736-becd-103bef226a5a
                Copyright 2021 Carson SL et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 12 April 2021
                : 23 July 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article