Abstract
Aspects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed from routine vaccines, including emergency use authorizations, the prioritization of access, and the politicization of messaging. Subsequently, many parents reported lower vaccine confidence relative to routine vaccines, and vaccination coverage stalled below targets. This study aimed to understand parental vaccine decision making and compare COVID-19 versus routine vaccine decision making. We conducted nine virtual focus groups between 25 February 2022–11 March 2022 with parents (n = 41) of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s patients, recruited via email and stratified by vaccine hesitancy status (non-hesitant vs. hesitant). Transcripts were analyzed using the vaccine hesitancy matrix domains. Of 41 total participants, 25 (61.0%) were non-hesitant, 16 (39.0%) were hesitant or their children were not up-to-date on adolescent vaccines, and most self-identified as female (95.1%) and White/Caucasian (61.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and many of their first children (n = 26, 63.4%) were vaccinated against influenza. Several themes emerged regarding decision making: individual influences, group influences, vaccine and vaccine program influences, and contextual influences. While some influences were similar for routine and COVID-19 vaccine decision making (e.g., needing evidence-based information), other factors were vaccine- or situation-specific. Building trust requires a multi-faceted concerted effort that involves addressing the complex vaccine decision-making process.
1. Introduction
Vaccine decision making is complex, especially for parents deciding for their children rather than themselves [1,2,3,4]. Hesitancy to vaccinate is a major public health concern, and U.S. parents are hesitant about specific childhood vaccines [5]. For example, approximately 26% are hesitant about the influenza vaccine and 23% are hesitant about the human papillomavirus vaccine with concerns centered on vaccine side effects, the severity of the disease prevented by vaccines, and vaccine effectiveness [6,7]. Similarly, parents have the same concerns about COVID-19 vaccines [8,9]. Within the current COVID-19 pandemic, decision making has become even more complicated. Knowledge about the disease and the long-term impact on various populations groups including children is emerging in real time. Initial access to vaccines has been authorized under pandemic emergency provisions while pending licensure, and the pressing nature of the vaccination program to vaccinate as quickly and as equitably as possible has added pressure on individuals and parents to make decisions [10,11,12,13,14].
These decisions are influenced by multiple factors including individual factors such as personal experiences, group level influences such as social norms, vaccine product specific characteristics such as the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine, and attributes of the vaccination program design (i.e., mass vaccination) that are influenced by contextual factors including politics and policies [11,12,15,16]. These factors influence parent’s motivation and intentions to vaccinate (e.g., making an appointment) and ultimately the decision to vaccinate or delay vaccination (Figure 1) [14,15,16].
Figure 1.
Factors influencing parental and individual vaccine decision making: COVID-19 and routine vaccines. Adapted from: WHO Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix developed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Vaccine Hesitancy Working Group (2015) [1], and Brewer, N.T.; Chapman, G.B.; Rothman, A.J.; Leask, J.; Kempe, A. Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological science into action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2018, 18 149–207 [16].
In this study, we explored parental values, beliefs, and attitudes relative to vaccine decision making for routine and COVID-19 vaccines to better understand the important factors of each at a time when children younger than five years of age could not be vaccinated against COVID-19 and vaccination rates of those older than five years fell below intended pandemic targets. Continuing to improve our understanding of this decision-making process is critical for making parents feel supported in their decision-making process and ultimately achieving broader vaccination coverage for all vaccines.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Participants, and Setting
We conducted a qualitative study among families using the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) care outpatient primary care system, which consists of 31 primary care sites located within the greater Philadelphia region. Sites are designated as urban academic (n = 3, located in Philadelphia, PA, USA), urban non-academic (n = 3), or suburban (n = 25, 22 in PA and 3 in NJ) (Supplemental Table S1).
Using the CHOP electronic health record (Epic Systems, Inc., Verona, WI, USA), we identified 40,583 eligible families using the following criteria: (1) if they had at least one living child between birth and 19 years of age, (2) if the child had received care between 1 January 2019 and 30 September 2021, and (3) if they had not opted out of all research. These families were invited to complete two sequential online surveys (October 2021–February 2022) about COVID-19 vaccination among children. Families who completed both surveys were subsequently invited to participate in the study described herein and stratified by hesitancy status using the Helmkamp scale (Supplemental Figure S1) [17].
To make our hesitant cohort more robust, we also identified 5230 parents of adolescents from the original 40,583 cohort whose children were not up-to-date (UTD) with vaccines routinely recommended for adolescents as of 24 February 2022, as specified by the Immunization for Adolescents Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) measure (Supplemental Figure S1) [18]. A randomized subset of families from this group was also invited to participate in this study and were considered hesitant for the purposes of this study.
We conducted nine one-hour virtual video focus groups (FGs) of 3–6 participants each from 25 February 2022 to 11 March 2022. Five FGs were conducted with non-hesitant parents, and four were conducted with parents of adolescent non-UTD or hesitant parents, as determined by the Helmkamp scale to stratify parents by hesitancy status [17]. Of the 80 invited to participate, 46 participated (response rate = 57.5%). Information on demographics, acceptance of routine vaccines, COVID-19 vaccination status and intentions, perceptions about COVID-19, access to vaccination services, COVID-19 anxiety, and the use of social media was collected from all participants in advance of their FG. This study was approved by the CHOP Institutional Review Board. All participants completed informed consent documentation.
2.2. Data Collection
A semi-structured interview guide was developed from previous COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy research [19,20,21]. Question domains included reasons for or against vaccination, social norms, information sources, access to services, and recommendations for improving access (Table 1). During the discussions, participants were instructed to consider their decision-making process for vaccination of themselves (individual) as well as of their children (parental).
Table 1.
Focus group question guide.
2.3. Data Analysis
FG interviews were recorded and transcribed using a transcription service. We analyzed transcripts and interview notes using a thematic approach, and findings were reported using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) reporting guidelines [22,23,24]. Two experienced coders (AKS and SB) reviewed the transcripts and field notes to develop a preliminary codebook and then tested and amended this codebook after coding two transcripts. Coders reached iterative consensus on the codebook, code definitions, and coding approach, and used memos to document the thematic evolution in the analysis. Triangulation was achieved with iterative discussions that included all moderators and facilitators.
Frameworks developed by the World Health Organization’s vaccine hesitancy matrix (VHM) were modified based on current psychological science [1,3,15,16,25]. Themes were categorized into four determinant domains, as illustrated in Figure 1: individual factors, group factors, vaccine-specific or vaccination-program-related factors, and contextual factors. This approach allowed for a multi-faceted consideration of vaccine intent, as well as motivation and intended behaviors for both routine- and situation-specific vaccines in the context of a dynamic environment (e.g., evolving pandemic and response).
3. Results
Nine focus groups (FGs) with 41 total participants (95% female) were conducted with 25 non-hesitant participants and 16 hesitant non-UTD participants. Non-hesitant participants were largely White or Caucasian (80%, p = 0.006) and mostly had household incomes over USD 75,000/year (84%). Regardless of hesitancy status, most participants (68.3%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (Table 2). Participants described factors that influenced their decision making for routine and COVID-19 vaccinations. Figure 1 shows themes organized by domain, and Table 3 shows the relevant quotes. Notably, the results reflect an inter-relatedness of factors that influence decision making.
Table 2.
Baseline sociodemographic and vaccination characteristics of focus group participants (N = 41) by vaccine hesitancy status.
Table 3.
Themes and illustrative quotes on factors influencing parental vaccine decision making.
Participants stated a clear differentiation between decisions to act for their themselves as adults and decisions for their children. Participants in two hesitant non-UTD groups echoed this sentiment on delay and hesitation: “I was scared to get it because of the unknown, because the vaccine hadn’t been out for much, but I trust the science and I did that for my kids as well, but I did delay their COVID vaccines for a bit. I didn’t get it as soon as it was available for them” (FG 6) and “I mean because making a decision for myself, I can live with the consequences I chose to whatever it is, but when it comes to my children, if I make the wrong decision, that will weight a lot more heavily on me” (FG 8).
When asked how participants currently (February/March 2022) feel about the pandemic, they reported two polar sentiments: either being “tired, exhausted, over it, frustrated, sad, challenged” or being “accepting, optimistic, and hopeful about the pandemic”. During the interviews, participants reported divisive experiences in their lives around vaccination with sentiments falling into three general categories. FG 1 primarily focused on practical issues of getting vaccinated while other groups (FGs 2–4) focused on the altruistic motive for vaccinating to help others for the greater good. Conversely, the hesitant non-UTD cohorts (FGs 5–9) were torn between tacitly encouraging vaccination and expressing the sentiment that individuals should not push their opinions on others.
3.1. Individual Factors
3.1.1. Personal Medical History and Experience with Previous Disease
Many participants described their concern with pre-existing and co-morbid conditions (e.g., asthma, autism), as well as previous experience with vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD), specifically COVID-19 disease and cervical cancer, as compelling reasons for vaccination. Participants described how personal experiences and seeing cases of VPDs, such as measles, and babies suffering are “horrible” and that they “didn’t want to go through that [COVID] and I don’t want my kids to go through that” (FG 2). Some participants also cited not vaccinating for a specific VPD because they were already immune from having had the disease (e.g., chickenpox) or because they survived the disease (i.e., influenza).
3.1.2. Beliefs (Autism, Altruism, and Conspiracy)
Participant beliefs, such as the belief that vaccines caused their child’s autism, the obligation to protect others for the greater good, and government conspiracies, influence their decisions (Table 3). One participant stated “play your part by getting them [children] vaccinated too. And that’s how you keep mumps away from everybody… and I did not have any concerns for us for COVID by myself… and I did not have any concerns [for my children]” (FG2). Participants perceived that their children were more vulnerable than themselves, with younger children being most vulnerable. A few participants felt that COVID “is a manmade disease… and I just don’t want to play Russian roulette with my kids’ life [and vaccinate]” (FG 6).
3.1.3. Knowledge to Make Decisions Is Informed by Trusted Sources
Participants felt that having trusted information sources, specifically trained experts, was central to their decision making and empowered them to be able to make informed decisions by having the facts that they needed (e.g., technology and science behind the vaccine). Participants were aware of the disease and the vaccine, but they stated that they were not experts and needed to hear from experts. Participants emphasized the autonomy of their decision making. In addition, many lost their trust in government sources, specifically the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They indicated that while the CDC was previously a trusted source, they were now perceived as bowing to political pressure during the pandemic.
3.1.4. Risk Perception of Disease as Burden Shifts
As COVID-19 case counts and hospitalizations shifted, participants described how their risk perceptions changed. When community transmission and case counts were high, participants felt that there was a compelling reason to vaccinate because “the side effects and the potential long-term side effects of actually having COVID can or are known and perceived to be worse” (FG 9). While participants were aware of the disease and the availability of the vaccine, they described that the most difficult part of their decision making was the time pressure they felt to decide about vaccination given their community’s disease burden. This time pressure was contrasted to decisions about routine vaccinations, stating that those vaccines have “been around for a long time” and the burden of disease for other VPDs is low.
3.2. Group Factors
3.2.1. Provider Trust and Experience with Health System
Many participants emphasized trust in their health system (e.g., CHOP for their children, Veterans Affairs for themselves) and in their child’s pediatrician and their own doctor, particularly participants with pre-existing or co-morbid conditions. Provider recommendations were often cited as the most compelling source for deciding to vaccinate: “I trust what my doctors are telling me that my kids need” (FG 5). Participants also cited their trust in and respect for family, friends, and colleagues with expertise in the health field, including those who work at pharmaceutical companies.
3.2.2. Vaccination as a Norm and Social Norm
Many participants described the routine vaccination schedule as a norm strengthened by the fact that vaccines are required for school entry. Participants often described how their parents or they were vaccinated, and that it was “just done”. Participants cited exceptions to the norm, particularly influenza and newer vaccines such as HPV, as the “only one” which parents out opt of giving to their children.
3.3. Vaccine and Vaccination Program Factors
3.3.1. Scientific Evidence of Risk and Benefit: Long-Term Safety and Efficacy
Many participants pointed out that while short-term safety can be detected by waiting fifteen minutes at the vaccination clinic, the unknowns about long-term safety were worrisome. Participants in FG 8 stated “I’ll be the test dummy. I’ll be the first one to get it before I consider getting my children vaccinated” and “the difficulty in making a decision about vaccines is obviously whether or not your child could be the one that could potentially suffer an adverse event”.
3.3.2. “Newness” of the Vaccine
Participants noted how new the vaccine was and contrasted the rapid introduction of this vaccine to routine vaccines. They described their anxiety around the “newness” of the vaccine and of the disease, though some participants felt COVID-19 disease has been around for a long time.
3.3.3. Vaccination Program Design and Supply
Most participants indicated a preference to receive vaccines in a medical setting to ensure that adverse events could be appropriately managed. Many parents stated preferences for their children to be vaccinated in their pediatricians’ offices, but they were fine with receiving vaccinations themselves in pharmacies and other settings (e.g., occupational health). “I don’t believe in shots from CVS… we don’t do anything in pharmacies in Poland, other than taking your prescription drugs from a pharmacy. I don’t really get flu shots at CVS. I can buy a greeting card at CVS and refill my prescription, but not necessarily having someone put a needle in my body… it’s just like a cultural thing” (FG 1).
Some participants found COVID-19 vaccine appointments with ease while others had frustrating experiences. While participants who wanted to vaccinate right away actively sought earlier appointments over their location of preference, most cited a desire to receive vaccination services from providers they knew and trusted. Having a choice of vaccine brand was also important to some participants, particularly given reports of some adverse vaccine candidates.
3.4. Contextual Factors
3.4.1. Communication and Media
Communication about the near-real-time events unfolding during the pandemic made communicating about the disease and the importance of vaccination more complicated. While participants cited media as a source of information, they also described how hearing about stories from others (about routine or COVID-19 vaccines) signaled to them that there must be something to be cautious about because people are talking about it. Specifically, with COVID vaccines, participants cited confusion around the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization for children under age five years and wished for clarity and transparency from the credible sources they use. Some participants, but not all, stated that they sought information about COVID-19 vaccines from different sources than for routine vaccines; their primary care provider for routine vaccines was their first line source for information whereas they used additional or other sources for COVID including the health department or news outlets.
3.4.2. Politics and Policies
Many participants described their frustration and fatigue related to politics and partisan divide: “I mean, I’m sure there are people who are Republican, who do get vaccinated and Democrats who don’t get vaccinated. But, it’s just like, everything is like black or white. It’s like this or that. And there’s no, there’s nothing in between… there’s no room for the gray... And if you try to get somewhere in between, like no one wants to hear from you ever again ….” (FG 5).
During the interviews, many participants indicated that they work in healthcare. When mandates were discussed, participants voiced mixed sentiments. Some people did not like being told what to do, yet others felt mandates were necessary to protect their children, themselves, and their families and communities. Likewise, some participants explained that they were vaccinated for routine vaccines because it is a school entry requirement. However, others indicated that COVID-19 mandates pushed them away from accepting vaccination, even if they intended to do so previously.
3.4.3. Historic Influences, Religion, Color, Gender, and Socio-Economic Status
Some participants cited historic distrust of the government. For example, one participant stated “you can’t really go back in time and undo Tuskegee, so I think there’s always going to be some kind of uphill battle [to vaccinate]… due to the history of the United States, there’s always going to be people who are just distrustful of the government and in some cases rightfully so. I don’t know how to convince those people [to vaccinate].” Others indicated that their religion helped drive their choices. As explained by one participant, “…we just pray for peace and protection, each day, move forward in that way” (FG 9).
3.5. Guidance for Other Parents and Recommendations to Policymakers
Participants offered guidance for other parents about COVID-19 vaccination and for policy-makers regarding ways to improve trust, confidence, accessibility, and communication with parents (Table 4). Guidance for other parents centered around taking ownership and carrying out evidenced-based research. Participants emphasized the importance of sharing their own personal experiences, communicating with empathy, acknowledging and validating others’ feelings, and allowing people the opportunity to ask questions while conveying that vaccination prevents serious harm and that their actions affect others. Guidance to policy-makers was centered around apolitical, transparent, and honest communication on policies and practices with deep consideration policies such as removing mandates.
Table 4.
Recommendations and strategies to improve trust, confidence, accessibility, and communication from parental focus groups 2022.
Participants felt that having respect for other people’s beliefs and opinions is fundamental to talking to other parents, as illustrated in two participants views here from the hesitant and non-UTD cohort: “I would prefer people to be vaccinated by I’m accepting of their choice to not be in an uncomfortable with that.” (FG9) and “Ultimately, I think we all need to feel that we made the right decisions for our kids, whatever that is. Not all kids can get the vaccine safely. So I just think, you know, do your homework and do what you’re comfortable with” (FG9).
Participants also noted the freedom and empowerment associated with having some control during the pandemic. As one participant stated, “So again, it’s not a hundred percent blanket of, you know, not getting it, but just for protecting myself and other people, It’s just a freedom, you know, that choice. …you have the mask, you can wear masks around people who are not vaccinated, whether they’re vaccinated or not vaccinated yet” (FG 9).
4. Discussion
Above all, participants clearly wanted their children to be safe amidst the pandemic and struggled to make the vaccine decision for their children. The weight of these decisions involved multiple inputs with different risk tolerance for themselves as compared to their children. Concerns and trust in their primary care provider (typically their child’s pediatrician) were common to hesitant and non-hesitant parents. In weighing risks of the disease versus the vaccine, parents described struggling because of vaccine safety concerns, newness of both the disease and the vaccine, and a sense of time pressure to make their decision given the risk of getting sick. Personal experience with VPDs, particularly COVID-19, affected the amount of risk individuals who were willing to vaccinate their children. All together, these inputs were bounded by the decision to vaccinate quickly, a concern often mitigated by a licensed vaccine (versus emergency authorized) and time on the commercial market (to provide an increased confidence in safety and effectiveness).
Changing community transmission led many to accept vaccination, particularly those at increased risk, and given the decline in routine VPDs, an individual’s perceived risk matters. The changing rates of community transmission, coupled with increased access to and expanded age recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, were discussed with increased sensitivity by respondents. Although routine vaccine coverage has declined because of low perceived risk, participants perceived their risk of COVID-19 as high; therefore, they tended to accept vaccination even if they were nervous about doing so. Recognizing levels of risk tolerance can inform how messages are shaped to parents. It is clear the higher the case counts, the more inclined individuals who may have been “on the fence” may have decided to vaccinate. Moreover, the autonomy to make this decision to protect oneself and one’s family—through masking, social distancing, or vaccination—provides some sense of control at a time where many feel helpless in the throes of a pandemic.
Messaging about vaccination is complex. There are situational reasons (e.g., a developing science that the public does not understand), the role of the media (which can be different than the goals of scientists), and the political and social ramifications of the pandemic (e.g., mandates, inequities in access) which should be considered. Politicization of the response to the pandemic was clearly evident and emphasized by respondents. Views on vaccines, vaccinations, and other interventions (such as masking) were documented early on in the response along party lines [26]. Vaccination has been controversial for centuries, but in the U.S., only in this pandemic has political affiliation so greatly impacted disease and vaccine attitudes and behaviors. COVID-19’s transmissibility and unknown manifestations led to nationwide quarantine and shut-down policies, a high number of deaths and hospitalizations, and a spread of fear (including the implications of long COVID) [27]. A combination of these reasons contributed to the systematic failure of public health messaging and has led to a confused and frustrated public. This has made it even more difficult for some to trust the public health system. Primary care providers such as trusted advisors have helped decision-makers to navigate the confusion, alongside the emerging concern about the long-term impact on the mental health of our communities, particularly in children [28]. Investing in training these providers on how to communicate with parents may be critical to raising coverage.
Focus group discussions illustrated that a one-size-fits-all view about population behavior can lead to false assumptions (e.g., all health care workers are pro-COVID vaccine) [29]. Beliefs, personal experiences, and situational context affect vaccine decision making. As such, those who receive the same information will process it differently. Recognizing this heterogeneity should be considered in tailoring public health strategies and communication. Most importantly, vaccine decision making is complex; therefore, approaches to those who have questions must be empathetic and must seek to understand their concerns on an individual basis—even at an individual point in time or for an individual vaccine—rather than being tempted to apply a one-size-fits-all response that applies a knowledge deficit model of engagement that simply communicates information about vaccine safety and efficacy [30,31,32].
Limitations
Our study had the following limitations: (1) recruitment in the hesitant cohort was low; thus, we expanded inclusion criteria to include parents of children who were not UTD with their adolescent vaccines (with HPV as a common driver of hesitancy); (2) we did not exclude parents who were employees of CHOP or worked in the medical or public health field, which may have biased our sample to more informed participants; (3) our findings may not be generalizable to other patient populations or geographic areas; and (4) virtual participation may have led to a selection bias excluding individuals with limited telephone or internet access.
Notably, the response rate to the focus group invitations was low, possibly reflective of a COVID environment where there is a saturation of information requests coupled with the challenges of managing life during a pandemic [33]. Despite this, the thematic saturation of the interviews provided insights across the study period hinged on the dynamic nature of the pandemic and the government’s response. The low participation of males is not uncommon as matriarchs of the family are generally more engaged in health promotion behavior and make many health care decisions, limiting how much gender differences contribute to the overall bias in this study [34,35].
5. Conclusions
By necessity, the scientific and public health response to COVID-19 unfolded quickly, leaving individuals and families with little time to process the changing situation and gain understanding of new information amidst a global public health emergency. Even for routine immunizations, vaccine decision making is complex, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, this decision making was further complicated. The newness of the disease and the vaccine, political effects on public health decision making, time pressure, and a sense of loss related to individual autonomy explain why individuals were more hesitant to comply, even when confronted with messaging related to the broader need to reach community immunity. As demonstrated by these focus groups, the need to protect the entire community, even during a public health emergency, involves the necessity of approaching the individual and taking the time to understand what considerations are going into their personal vaccine decision making through transparent apolitical engagement with respect for the concerns of communities and autonomy in decision making.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines10081277/s1. Table S1: The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia outpatient care network patient demographics, 2022. Figure S1: Sampling method for study recruitment for parental vaccine confidence survey and focus groups from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) outpatient primary care network, 2021–2022.
Author Contributions
A.K.S. and S.B. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, collected data, performed data analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. T.S. and M.L.K. conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the collected data, and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript. J.J.M. and A.S.L.T. conceptualized and designed the study and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The project described was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health through the Philadelphia Community Engagement Alliance against COVID-19 (OT2HL161568). This work is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (IRB 21-019115, November 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Charlotte Moser for her thoughtful review of this manuscript and the patients and families for their contributions to this project facilitated through the Pediatric Research Consortium (PeRC) at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- MacDonald, N.E.; Eskola, J.; Liang, X.; Chaudhuri, M.; Dube, E.; Gellin, B.; Goldstein, S.; Larson, H.; Manzo, M.L.; Reingold, A.; et al. Vaccine Hesitancy: Definition, Scope and Determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orenstein, W.A.; Gellin, B.G.; Beigi, R.H.; Despres, S.; Lynfield, R.; Maldonado, Y.; Mouton, C.; Rawlins, W.; Rothholz, M.C.; Smith, N.; et al. Assessing the State of Vaccine Confidence in the United States: Recommendations from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee: Approved by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee on June 10, 2015. Public Health Rep. 2015, 130, 573. [Google Scholar]
- Dubé, E.; Laberge, C.; Guay, M.; Bramadat, P.; Roy, R.; Bettinger, J.A. Vaccine Hesitancy: An Overview. Hum. Vaccine Immunother. 2013, 9, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salomoni, M.G.; di Valerio, Z.; Gabrielli, E.; Montalti, M.; Tedesco, D.; Guaraldi, F.; Gori, D. Hesitant or Not Hesitant? A Systematic Review on Global COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Different Populations. Vaccine 2021, 9, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Larson, H.J.; Cooper, L.Z.; Eskola, J.; Katz, S.L.; Ratzan, S. Addressing the Vaccine Confidence Gap. Lancet 2011, 378, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kempe, A.; Saville, A.W.; Albertin, C.; Zimet, G.; Breck, A.; Helmkamp, L.; Vangala, S.; Dickinson, L.M.; Rand, C.; Humiston, S.; et al. Parental Hesitancy About Routine Childhood and Influenza Vaccinations: A National Survey. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e20193852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szilagyi, P.G.; Albertin, C.S.; Gurfinkel, D.; Saville, A.W.; Vangala, S.; Rice, J.D.; Helmkamp, L.; Zimet, G.D.; Valderrama, R.; Breck, A.; et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of HPV Vaccine Hesitancy among Parents of Adolescents across the US. Vaccine 2020, 38, 6027–6037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Clarke, R.; Mounier-Jack, S.; Walker, J.L.; Paterson, P. Parents’ and Guardians’ Views on the Acceptability of a Future COVID-19 Vaccine: A Multi-Methods Study in England. Vaccine 2020, 38, 7789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.C.; Fang, Y.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.Q.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. Parental Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccination for Children Under the Age of 18 Years: Cross-Sectional Online Survey. JMIR Pediatr Parent 2020, 3, e24827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Academy of Pediatrics Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report. Available online: https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/ (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Disparities|KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org/statedata/collection/covid-19-disparities/ (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Children 5 through 11 Years of Age|FDA. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-children-5-through-11-years-age (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Postpones Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Request for Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Children 6 Months Through 4 Years of Age|FDA. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-postpones-advisory-committee-meeting-discuss-request-authorization (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration COVID-19 Vaccines|FDA. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Brewer, N.T. What Works to Increase Vaccination Uptake. Acad. Pediatrics 2021, 21, S9–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, N.T.; Chapman, G.B.; Rothman, A.J.; Leask, J.; Kempe, A. Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2018, 18, 149–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Helmkamp, L.J.; Szilagyi, P.G.; Zimet, G.; Saville, A.W.; Gurfinkel, D.; Albertin, C.; Breck, A.; Vangala, S.; Kempe, A. A Validated Modification of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale for Childhood, Influenza and HPV Vaccines. Vaccine 2021, 39, 1831–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Committee for Quality Assurance Immunizations for Adolescents—NCQA. Available online: https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/immunizations-for-adolescents/ (accessed on 9 May 2022).
- Carson, S.L.; Casillas, A.; Castellon-Lopez, Y.; Mansfield, L.N.; Morris, D.; Barron, J.; Ntekume, E.; Landovitz, R.; Vassar, S.D.; Norris, K.C.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-Making Factors in Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities in Los Angeles, California. JAMA Network Open 2021, 4, e2127582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaiser Family Foundation KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor Dashboard|KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/ (accessed on 9 May 2022).
- Center’s for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Confidence Survey Question Bank; Center’s for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Hayfield, N.; Terry, G. Thematic Analysis. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 843–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, B.C.; Harris, I.B.; Beckman, T.J.; Reed, D.A.; Cook, D.A. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad. Med. 2014, 89, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2014.
- Kiviniemi, M.T.; Orom, H.; Hay, J.L.; Waters, E.A. Prevention Is Political: Political Party Affiliation Predicts Perceived Risk and Prevention Behaviors for COVID-19. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, N.M.; Laydon, D.; Nedjati-Gilani, G.; Imai, N.; Ainslie, K.; Baguelin, M.; Bhatia, S.; Boonyasiri, A.; Cucunubá, Z.; Cuomo-Dannenburg, G.; et al. Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) to Reduce COVID-19 Mortality and Healthcare Demand; Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dooley, D.G.; Rhodes, H.; Bandealy, A. Pandemic Recovery for Children—Beyond Reopening Schools. JAMA Pediatrics 2022, 176, 347–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuter, B.J.; Browne, S.; Momplaisir, F.M.; Feemster, K.A.; Shen, A.K.; Green-McKenzie, J.; Faig, W.; Offit, P.A. Perspectives on the Receipt of a COVID-19 Vaccine: A Survey of Employees in Two Large Hospitals in Philadelphia. Vaccine 2021, 39, 1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Make, J.; Lauver, A. Increasing Trust and Vaccine Uptake: Offering Invitational Rhetoric as an Alternative to Persuasion in Pediatric Visits with Vaccine-Hesitant Parents (VHPs). Vaccine X 2022, 10, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldenberg, M.J. Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy. Perspect. Sci. 2016, 24, 552–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossen, I.; Hurlstone, M.J.; Lawrence, C. Going with the Grain of Cognition: Applying Insights from Psychology to Build Support for Childhood Vaccination. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weaver, J.L.; Swank, J.M. Parents’ Lived Experiences With the COVID-19 Pandemic: Fam. J. 2020, 29, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranji, U.; Frederiksen, B.; Salganicoff, A.; Hamel, L.; Lopes, L. Role of Mothers in Assuring Children Receive COVID-19 Vaccinations|KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/role-of-mothers-in-assuring-children-receive-covid-19-vaccinations/ (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Ek, S. Gender Differences in Health Information Behaviour: A Finnish Population-Based Survey. Health Promot. Int. 2015, 30, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).