Objective To investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake and intent among pregnant people in Canada, and determine associated factors. Methods We conducted a national cross-sectional survey among pregnant people from May 28 through June 7, 2021 (n = 193). Respondents completed a questionnaire to determine COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (defined as either received or intend to receive a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy), factors associated with vaccine acceptance, and rationale for accepting/not accepting the vaccine. Results Of 193 respondents, 57.5% (n = 111) reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Among those who did not accept the vaccine, concern over vaccine safety was the most commonly cited reason (90.1%, n = 73), and 81.7% (n = 67) disagreed with receiving a vaccine that had not been tested in pregnant people. Confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety (aOR 16.72, 95% CI: 7.22, 42.39), Indigenous self-identification (aOR 11.59, 95% CI: 1.77, 117.18), and employment in an occupation at high risk for COVID-19 exposure excluding healthcare (aOR 4.76, 95% CI: 1.32, 18.60) were associated with vaccine acceptance. Perceived personal risk of COVID-19 disease was not associated with vaccine acceptance in the multivariate model. Conclusion Vaccine safety is a primary concern for this population. Safety information should be communicated to this population as it emerges, along with clear messaging on the benefits of vaccination, as disease risk is either poorly understood or poorly valued in this population.
Background Additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been proposed as solutions to waning immunity and decreased effectiveness of primary doses against infection with new SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, the effectiveness of additional vaccine doses relies on widespread population acceptance. We aimed to assess the acceptance of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses (third and annual doses) among Canadian adults and determine associated factors. Methods We conducted a national, cross-sectional online survey among Canadian adults from October 14 to November 12, 2021. Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to identify sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with third and annual dose acceptance and indecision, compared to refusal. We also assessed influences on vaccine decision-making, and preferences for future vaccine delivery. Results Of 6010 respondents, 70% reported they would accept a third dose, while 15.2% were undecided. For annual doses, 64% reported acceptance, while 17.5% were undecided. Factors associated with third dose acceptance and indecision were similar to those associated with annual dose acceptance and indecision. Previous COVID-19 vaccine receipt, no history of COVID-19 disease, intention to receive an influenza vaccine, and increasing age were strongly associated with both acceptance and indecision. Chronic illness was associated with higher odds of acceptance, while self-reported disability was associated with higher odds of being undecided. Higher education attainment and higher income were associated with higher odds of accepting additional doses. Minority first language was associated with being undecided about additional doses, while visible minority identity was associated with being undecided about a third dose and refusing an annual dose. All respondents reported government recommendations were an important influence on their decision-making and identified pharmacy-based delivery and drop-in appointments as desirable. Co-administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines was viewed positively by 75.5% of the dose 3 acceptance group, 12.3% of the undecided group, and 8.4% of the refusal group. Conclusions To increase acceptance, targeted interventions among visible minority and minority language populations, and those with a disability, are required. Offering vaccination at pharmacies and through drop-in appointments are important to facilitate uptake, while offering COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration may have little benefit among those undecided about additional doses.
The impact of universal varicella vaccination on herpes zoster (HZ) risk in unvaccinated and vaccinated children, and its long-term influence on HZ epidemiology, remains unknown. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population-based administrative health data for children born between 1993 and 2018 (n = 924,124). We calculated age-specific cumulative HZ incidence rates by vaccination status for cohorts born before (1993–1999) and after (2000–2018) programme implementation; results were used to calculate relative risk of HZ by age group, vaccination status and vaccine availability period. Annual HZ incidence rates were calculated for 1993–2018. HZ risk was higher among unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated children across age groups; 64% higher before universal vaccination (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.39), and 32% higher after universal vaccination (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.73). Among unvaccinated children, HZ risk was 60% lower after vaccine programme implementation (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.38, 0.43). Two-dose receipt corresponded with a 41% lower risk of HZ compared to one-dose receipt (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.65). Crude annual HZ incidence rates declined 64% after programme implementation, with decreases observed across age groups. Universal varicella vaccination programme implementation corresponds to decreased paediatric HZ incidence across age groups, in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Results from this study can be used to help inform varicella vaccination programme decision-making in other countries.
Immunocompromised children are at increased risk of severe illness from vaccine-preventable infections. However, inadequate vaccine coverage remains a concern. This scoping review sought to determine the current state of knowledge regarding vaccine coverage of immunocompromised children. Bibliographic databases were searched for primary research from any year. Data were analyzed quantitatively and narratively. Ninety-seven studies met inclusion criteria. The most commonly studied vaccines were pneumococcal (n = 46), influenza (n = 44), diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis/poliomyelitis/Haemophilus influenzae type B/hepatitis B-containing (n = 36), and measles-and/or mumps-and/or rubella-containing (n = 29). Immunocompromising conditions studied included cancer/stem cell transplants (n = 24), solid organ transplants (n = 23), sickle cell disease (n = 21), immunosuppressive therapy (n = 14), human immunodeficiency virus (n = 12), splenectomy (n = 4), and primary immunodeficiency (n = 2). As more children are treated with immunosuppressive therapies, it is critical to identify whether they are being appropriately vaccinated for age and condition. We identified gaps in the current state of knowledge for specific vaccine types in specific immunocompromised populations.
Publicly funded immunization programs have grown in both complexity and scope, resulting in increased costs and more complex programmatic decision making. Economic evaluations can provide crucial information to support informed decision making. While very few countries have National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups that analyze economic information, many have started to develop processes for this purpose. Since these guidelines are being developed at the national level, we propose that regional jurisdictions, especially those responsible for healthcare (e.g., provinces, territories, states), need clear processes for incorporating this information into their immunization decision making and program implementation. We interviewed Canadian vaccine experts involved in provincial vaccine policy decision making to identify current practices, perceptions, and recommendations around incorporating economic analysis into that process. Based on these interviews, we make five recommendations: (1) economic evidence should be routinely incorporated into the decision making process;(2) economic experts should sit on, or be available to, regional advisory committees; (3) efforts should be made to build on regional expertise by increasing educational opportunities on economic evaluation; (4) processes should include guidelines for when economic analysis is not required; and (5) clarification on the role of regional advisory groups in economic analysis is needed in relation to national expertise. The information presented here provides a starting point for regional health policy experts and decision makers to work collaboratively with national partners to create transparent and effective approaches to incorporating economic analysis into vaccine decision making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.