Vaccine sentiments and under-vaccination: Attitudes and behaviour around Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine (MMR) in an Australian cohort

Toll, Mathew; Li, Ang

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.11.021

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, vaccine hesitancy (VH) refers to indecisiveness or uncertainty among individuals about vaccine uptake, and those vaccine-hesitant individuals can exhibit a spectrum of attitudes [13], dependent on individual and environmental influences. However, vaccination refusal is classified as a decision to reject vaccination [14]. The current literature has noted a number of barriers related to vaccine uptake, i.e., inadequate infrastructure, prevailing cultural norms, poor health literacy, vaccine-related myths, conspiracy theories, and misinformation [15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Intention and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines on the African Continent: A Scoping Review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic is a severe concern worldwide, particularly in Africa. Vaccines are crucial in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review examined existing literature from 2020 to 2022 on individual, interpersonal, and structural barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination within Africa to facilitate more informed health promotion interventions to improve vaccine uptake. This review was conducted using Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage methodological framework. A comprehensive search was undertaken from 2021 to 2022 using six electronic databases: EBSCOhost, PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, WorldCat Discovery, and Google Scholar. Data was collected, charted into themes, and summarized using a standard data extraction sheet in Microsoft Excel. A total of forty (n = 40) published academic articles were reviewed, with many conducted in Nigeria (n = 10), followed by Ethiopia (n = 5) and Ghana (n = 4) and the rest elsewhere in Africa. Thematic narratives were used to report data into six themes: attitudes and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines, intention to uptake COVID-19 vaccines; factors and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake; socio-demographic determinants affecting the intention and uptake; and information sources for COVID-19 vaccines. The intention for uptake ranged from 25% to 80.9%, resulting in a suboptimal uptake intention rate (54.2%) on the African continent. Factors that promoted vaccine acceptance included confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines and the desire to protect people. Age, education, and gender were the most common factors significantly associated with vaccine acceptance. Most studies revealed that considerable barriers to vaccine uptake exist in Africa. Concerns about potential side effects, vaccine ineffectiveness, a perceived lack of information, and inaccessibility were among the individual, interpersonal, and structural barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was strongly correlated with being female. Mass and social media were the main sources of information regarding COVID-19 vaccines. To encourage vaccine uptake, governments should pay attention to refuting misinformation through integrated community-based approaches, such as creating messages that convey more than just information.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Intention and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines on the African Continent: A Scoping Review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Religion and cultural factors, which have been factors implicated in vaccine hesitancy in the past [ 32 ], were also not evaluated in our study. Finally, our study only captured vaccine attitudes at one point in time, whereas it is understood that vaccine hesitancy is fluid and complicated in nature, does not always translate into behaviors [ 39 ], and can readily change with time or exposure to new information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes among Arab American Healthcare Professionals Living in the United States

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Vaccine hesitancy is the next great barrier for public health. Arab Americans are a rapidly growing demographic in the United States with limited information on the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. We therefore sought to study the attitudes towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the United States. Methods: This was a cross sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Results: A total of 4000 surveys were sent via e-mail from 28 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, and 513 responses were received. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18–29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. On multivariable analysis, we found that respondents who had declined an influenza vaccine in the preceding 5 years (p < 0.001) and allied health professionals (medical assistants, hospital administrators, case managers, researchers, scribes, pharmacists, dieticians and social workers) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (p = 0.025). In addition, respondents earning over $150,000 US dollars annually were less likely to be vaccine hesitant and this finding was significant on multivariable analysis (p = 0.011). Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy among health care providers could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population, and such data may help inform vaccine advocacy efforts.

show abstract

“…To account for known potential confounders 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 and to increase power, we performed an analysis adjusted for all baseline characteristics. We did not include the measles immunisation status of mothers (wild type infection, measles vaccine, or not immunised) because the non-immunised group was too small.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 6 months and hospitalisation for infection before age 12 months: randomised controlled trial

Zimakoff,

Jensen,

Vittrup

et al. 2023

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To test for potential non-specific effects of an additional, early measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine at age 5-7 months on risk of infection related hospitalisation before age 12 months. Design Randomised, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Setting Denmark, a high income setting with low exposure to MMR. Participants 6540 Danish infants aged 5 to 7 months. Interventions Infants were randomly allocated 1:1 to intramuscular injection with standard titre MMR vaccine (M-M-R VaxPro) or placebo (solvent only). Main outcome measures Hospitalisations for infection, defined as all hospital contacts of infants referred from primary care for hospital evaluation and with an infection diagnosed, analysed as recurrent events, from randomisation to 12 months of age. In secondary analyses implications of censoring for date of subsequent diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and immunisation with pneumococci conjugate vaccine (DTaP-IPV-Hib+PCV), potential effect modification by sex, prematurity (<37 weeks’ gestation), season, and age at randomisation were tested, and the secondary outcomes of hospitalisations ≥12 hours and antibiotic use were evaluated. Results 6536 infants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 3264 infants randomised to MMR vaccine experienced 786 hospitalisations for infection before age 12 months compared with 762 for the 3272 infants randomised to placebo. In the intention-to-treat analysis the rate of hospitalisations for infection did not differ between the MMR vaccine and placebo groups (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.18). For infants randomised to MMR vaccine compared with those randomised to placebo, the hazard ratio of hospitalisations for infection with a duration of at least 12 hours was 1.25 (0.88 to 1.77), and for prescriptions of antibiotics was 1.04 (0.88 to 1.23). No significant effect modifications were found by sex, prematurity, age at randomisation, or season. The estimate did not change when censoring at the date infants received DTaP-IPV-Hib+PCV after randomisation (1.02, 0.90 to 1.16). Conclusion Findings of this trial conducted in Denmark, a high income setting, do not support the hypothesis that live attenuated MMR vaccine administered early to infants aged 5-7 months decreases the rate of hospitalisations for non-targeted infection before age 12 months. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Registry EudraCT 2016-001901-18 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03780179 .

show abstract

Vaccine sentiments and under-vaccination: Attitudes and behaviour around Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine (MMR) in an Australian cohort

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Factors Influencing the Intention and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines on the African Continent: A Scoping Review

Factors Influencing the Intention and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines on the African Continent: A Scoping Review

Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes among Arab American Healthcare Professionals Living in the United States

Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 6 months and hospitalisation for infection before age 12 months: randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About