No abstract

Despite being recognized as one of the most successful public health measures, vaccination is perceived as unsafe and unnecessary by a growing number of parents. Anti-vaccination movements have been implicated in lowered vaccine acceptance rates and in the increase in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks and epidemics. In this review, we will look at determinants of parental decision-making about vaccination and provide an overview of the history of anti-vaccination movements and its clinical impact.

In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.

In October and November 2020, we conducted a survey of 2,678 healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in general population immunisation in France, French-speaking Belgium and Quebec, Canada to assess acceptance of future COVID-19 vaccines (i.e. willingness to receive or recommend these) and its determinants. Of the HCWs, 48.6% (n = 1,302) showed high acceptance, 23.0% (n = 616) moderate acceptance and 28.4% (n = 760) hesitancy/reluctance. Hesitancy was mostly driven by vaccine safety concerns. These must be addressed before/during upcoming vaccination campaigns.

When faced with vaccine hesitancy, public health authorities are looking for effective strategies to address this issue. In this paper, the findings of 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis that have examined the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance are presented and discussed. From the literature, there is no strong evidence to recommend any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy/refusal. The reviewed studies included interventions with diverse content and approaches that were implemented in different settings and targeted various populations. Few interventions were directly targeted to vaccine hesitant individuals. Given the paucity of information on effective strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, when interventions are implemented, planning a rigorous evaluation of their impact on vaccine hesitancy/vaccine acceptance will be essential.

No abstract

HighlightsVaccine hesitancy is a global problem that is complex and multilayered. Vaccine hesitancy is context, time, place and vaccine specific.Interviews with immunization managers were conducted to determine the breadth and perceived drivers of vaccine hesitancy at the countries’ level.Our study results, not unexpectedly, revealed a wide variation in the reported basis for vaccine hesitancy across countries.

Governments around the world have implemented measures to manage the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the majority of these measures are proving effective, they have a high social and economic cost, and response strategies are being adjusted. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that communities should have a voice, be informed and engaged, and participate in this transition phase. We propose ten considerations to support this principle: (1) implement a phased approach to a 'new normal'; (2) balance individual rights with the social good; (3) prioritise people at highest risk of negative consequences; (4) provide special support for healthcare workers and care staff; (5) build, strengthen and maintain trust; (6) enlist existing social norms and foster healthy new norms; (7) increase resilience and self-efficacy; (8) use clear and positive language; (9) anticipate and manage misinformation; and (10) engage with media outlets. The transition phase should also be informed by real-time data according to which governmental responses should be updated.