No abstract

Vaccine hesitancy could become a significant impediment to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study examined the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and factors associated with vaccine intentions. A national panel survey by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) was designed to be representative of the US household population. Sampled respondents were invited to complete the survey between May 14 and 18, 2020 in English or Spanish. 1,056 respondents completed the survey—942 via the web and 114 via telephone. The dependent variable was assessed by the item “If a vaccine against the coronavirus becomes available, do you plan to get vaccinated, or not?” Approximately half (53.6%) reported intending to be vaccinated, 16.7% did not intend, and 29.7% were unsure. In the adjusted stepwise multinominal logistic regression, Black and Hispanic respondents were significantly less likely to report intending to be vaccinated as were respondents who were females, younger, and those who were more politically conservative. Compared to those who reported positive vaccine intentions, respondents with negative vaccine intentions were significantly less likely to report that they engaged in the COVID-19 prevention behaviors of wearing masks (aOR = 0.53, CI = 0.37–0.76) and social distancing (aOR = 0.22, CI = 0.12–0.42). In a sub-analysis of reasons not to be vaccinated, significant race/ethnic differences were observed. This national survey indicated a modest level of COVID-19 vaccine intention. These data suggest that public health campaigns for vaccine uptake should assess in greater detail the vaccine concerns of Blacks, Hispanics, and women to tailor programs.

Background COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a major obstacle for pandemic mitigation. As vaccine hesitancy occurs along multiple dimensions, we used a social-ecological framework to guide the examination of COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Methods Using an online survey in the US conducted in July 2020, we examined intentions to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, once available. 592 respondents provided data, including measures of demographics, vaccine history, social norms, perceived risk, and trust in sources of COVID-19 information. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial models were used to compare respondents who did not intend to get or were ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and to those who intended to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Results Only 59.1% of the sample reported that they intended to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. In the multivariate multinomial model, those respondents who did not intend to be vaccinated, as compared to those who did, had significantly lower levels of trust in the CDC as a source of COVID-19 information (aOR= 0.29, CI=0.17-0.50), reported lower social norms of COVID-19 preventive behaviors (aOR=0.6, CI 0.51-0.88), scored higher on COVID-19 Skepticism (aOR=1.44, CI=1.28-1.61), identified as more politically conservative (aOR=1.23, CI=1.05-1.45), were less likely to have obtained a flu vaccine in the prior year (aOR=0.21, CI= 0.11-0.39), were less likely to be female (aOR=0.51, CI=0.29-0.87), and were much more likely to be Black compared to White (aOR=10.7, CI=4.09-28.1). A highly similar pattern was observed among those who were ambivalent about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to those who intended to receive one. Conclusion The results of this study suggest several avenues for COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaigns, including social network diffusion strategies and cross-partisan messaging, to promote vaccine trust. The racial and gender differences in vaccine intentions also suggest the need to tailor campaigns based on gender and race.

No abstract

Background Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. Methods and findings We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States’ plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that states’ COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.

We conducted a longitidinal assessment of 806 respondents in the US to examine the trustworthiness of sources of information about COVID-19. Respondents were recontacted after four months. Information sources included mainstream media, state health departments, the CDC, the White House, and a well-known university. We also examined how demographics, political partisanship, and skepticism about COVID-19 were associated with the perceived trustworthiness of information sources and decreased trustworthiness over time. At baseline, the majority of respondants reported high trust in COVID-19 information from state health departments (75.6%), the CDC (80.9%), and a university (Johns Hopkins, 81.1%). Mainstream media was trusted by less than half the respondents (41.2%), and the White House was the least trusted source (30.9%). At the 4-month follow-up, a significant decrease in trustworthiness in all five sources of COVID-19 information was observed. The most pronounced reductions were from the CDC and the White House. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with rating the CDC, state health department, and a university as trustworthy sources of COVID-19 information were political party affiliation, level of education, and skepticism about COVID-19. The most consistent predictor of decreased trust was political party affiliation, with Democrats as compared to Republicans less likely to report decreased trust across all sources.

Background-Fatalities from opioid overdose quadrupled during the last 15 years as illicit opioid use increased. This study assesses how stigma and drug use settings are associated with non-fatal overdose to identify targets for overdose risk reduction interventions and inform overdose education and naloxone distribution programs. Methods-We surveyed 444 people who used drugs in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, from 2009-2013 as part of a randomized clinical trial of a harm reduction intervention. Participants reported demographic characteristics, drug use, overdose history, use of a local syringe services program, involvement in the local drug economy, and whether they experienced discrimination from others (i.e. enacted stigma) or stigmatized themselves (i.e., internalized stigma) related to their drug use. We used multinomial logistic regression models to identify correlates of experiencing a non-fatal overdose within the past year or >1 year ago relative to participants who never experienced an overdose. Results-Stigma was positively associated with experiencing a nonfatal overdose in the past year (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]: 1.7, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.1-2.7) and >1 year ago (aOR [95% CI]: 1.5 [1.1-2.0]) after adjustment for demographic and substance use characteristics. The association of stigma with overdose was stronger for enacted versus internalized stigma. The number of public settings (shooting gallery, crack house, abandoned building, public bathroom, Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background: Fentanyl-related mortality has skyrocketed among people who use opioids (PWUO) in North America. The current study of PWUO aims to examine the perceived fentanyl risk and training needs; fatal overdose prevention behaviors; and, feasibility of a peer education approach to reducing fentanyl-related fatal overdoses in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Methods: 316 street-recruited PWUO were interviewed about fentanyl in Baltimore, MD Results: Most participants (56%) reported that "all" or "almost all" heroin in Baltimore was adulterated with fentanyl and were worried (75%) about their drug buddies overdosing on fentanyl. Half (54%) the participants felt that they needed more training to respond to an overdose. Many participants (66%) reported receiving naloxone or a prescription for it, yet only 17% carried naloxone with them "often" or "always." Among people who inject drugs only 13% had naloxone available "often" or "always" when they injected with others, and 51% "often" or "always" injected alone. Almost half of participants (47%) were "very willing" to talk with people in their neighborhood about fentanyl. Conclusions:The majority of PWUO perceived that most heroin in Baltimore was adulterated with fentanyl, yet most did not carry naloxone and PWID often did so alone. Given the high perceived risk of fentanyl and relatively low uptake of fatal overdose prevention behaviors, there is an urgency for safe injection facilities, access to medically assisted treatment, and programs that work with the drug-using community to deliver overdose prevention training as well as promote behaviors to carry naloxone and not use drugs alone.