Vaccination is a critical means for mitigating the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (US). However, the initial high demand for COVID-19 vaccines has not persisted, and the rate of vaccination slowed significantly in the summer of 2021. This study seeks to understand the motivations to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among hesitant adopters. Hesitant adopters are individuals who express some level of hesitancy about the vaccine but have also received at least one dose of the vaccine. Using a qualitative descriptive design, three loci for motivation emerged during analysis: extrinsic motivators, intrinsic motivators, and structural motivators. Extrinsic motivations, such as protecting one’s community, family, and friends, were reported as driving vaccination behavior. Among intrinsic motivators, the desire to protect themselves from COVID-19 was the most frequently reported. Structural motivators were also identified, indicating that vaccine mandates also serve to motivate hesitant adopters of the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings have important implications in ongoing efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the US and highlight the multi-dimensional motivations for vaccination among hesitant adopters. Additionally, we provide recommendations for practice based on our findings.

Vaccination is critical for protecting adults and children from COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Analyzing subsamples of parent/guardians of children age 0–11 (n = 343) and 12–17 (n = 322) from a larger national survey of US adults (n = 2,022), we aimed to assess intentions to vaccinate children and how intentions might vary across parent/guardian sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare coverage, vaccination status, political affiliation, prior COVID-19 infection, exposure to COVID-19 death(s) of family or friends, perceived norms of vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We also report the prevalence of vaccinated children for parents whose oldest child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey. More than one third of parents whose oldest child was not yet eligible for vaccination (11 or younger) planned to get them vaccinated right away when a vaccine became available to them. Among parents whose child was eligible to be vaccinated (age 12–17 years), approximately a third reported their child had already been vaccinated and approximately a third planned to do so right away. Intentions to vaccinate children age 0 to 11 were significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Intentions to vaccinate children age 12 to 17 were significantly associated with age, education, healthcare coverage, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We discuss implications for public health officials and for future research.

No abstract

A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess Arkansas parents’/guardians’ intentions to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Parents/guardians whose oldest child was age 0–11 years (n = 171) or 12–17 years (n = 198) were recruited between 12 July and 30 July 2021 through random digit dialing. Among parents/guardians with an age-eligible child, age 12–17, 19% reported their child had been vaccinated, and 34% reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Among parents/guardians with a child aged 0–11, 33% of parents/guardians reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 12–17 and 26% of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 0–11 reported they would only have their child vaccinated if their school required it; otherwise, they would definitely not vaccinate them. For both groups, parents’/guardians’ education, COVID-19 vaccination status, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were significantly associated with intentions to vaccinate their child. More than a third of parents/guardians whose child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey reported they intended to have them vaccinated right away; however, they had not vaccinated their child more than two months after approval. This finding raises questions about the remaining barriers constraining some parents/guardians from vaccinating their child.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. 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.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Agricultural work involves hazards that may harm long‐term well‐being. We evaluated the risk of long‐term disability and death for agricultural workers compared to construction workers with similar demographics. We hypothesized that delays to emergency care and subsequent long‐term disability following injury might be worse for agricultural workers compared to those injured in construction. Methods: We evaluated all adults severely injured on farms or on construction sites in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012, according to the Ontario Trauma Registry. We excluded individuals living outside of the province, those missing a valid health card number, or youth less than 17 years old. Our primary outcome was death or the subsequent application for disability support. Results: In total, 353 patients were injured on a farm or construction site during the study period. Delays to emergency care exceeding 12 hours were more frequent for agricultural workers compared to construction workers (43% vs 23%, P <.001). After a 5‐year follow‐up, agricultural workers had a death or disability rate marginally higher than construction workers (23% vs 14%, P = .068), equivalent to a hazard ratio of 1.62 that was marginally statistically significant (95% confidence interval 0.96‐2.75, P = .072). The risk of death and disability was greatest for patients who had the longest delays to emergency care. Interpretation: Agricultural workers experience a substantial delay in receiving emergency care and a marginally higher risk of death or disability in the years following injury compared to construction workers.