Next Article in Journal
Immunogenicity of Different Types of Adjuvants and Nano-Adjuvants in Veterinary Vaccines: A Comprehensive Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaigns in Veneto Region: Population Vaccination Centers as Support for the Traditional Outpatient Model
Previous Article in Journal
Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vaccines
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/vaccines11020454
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Associated with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: Data from Outpatient Women Experiencing High-Risk Pregnancy

by
Marianna Maranto
1,
Giuseppe Gullo
2,
Alessandra Bruno
3,
Giuseppa Minutolo
3,
Gaspare Cucinella
2,
Antonio Maiorana
1,
Alessandra Casuccio
3 and
Vincenzo Restivo
3,*
1
HCU Obstetrics and Gynecology, ARNAS Ospedale Civico Di Cristina-Benfratelli Hospital, 90127 Palermo, Italy
2
IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy
3
Department of Health Promotion, Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE) “G. D’Alessandro”, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vaccines 2023, 11(2), 454; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020454
Submission received: 15 January 2023 / Revised: 12 February 2023 / Accepted: 14 February 2023 / Published: 16 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine Acceptance and Effectiveness after Pandemic Era for Infectious Diseases Eradication)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications than non-pregnant women. The initial exclusion of pregnant women from anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines clinical trials has caused a lack of conclusive data about safety and efficacy for this vulnerable population. This cross-sectional study aims to define the factors related to vaccination adherence in a sample of women experiencing high-risk pregnancies. The recruited women completed a questionnaire based on the Health Belief Model. Data were analyzed to evaluate the associations between socio-demographic variables and vaccination acceptance through descriptive, univariate and multivariate logistic analyses. Among the 233 women enrolled, 65.2% (n = 152) declared that they would accept the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Multivariate analysis showed that vaccination acceptance was associated with a high educational level (aOR = 4.52, p = 0.001), a low perception of barriers to vaccination (aOR = 1.58, p = 0.005) and the gynecologist’s advice (aOR = 3.18, p = 0.01). About a third of pregnant women are still hesitant about the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, probably because of the conflicting information received from media, friends, acquaintances and health institutions. Determining factors linked to vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women is useful for creating vaccination strategies that increase vaccination uptake.

1. Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory infectious disease that has become a major threat to global public health, especially since the spread of the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 is mainly spread via respiratory droplets and can cause a wide range of clinical cases: the infection can be asymptomatic, cause mild respiratory symptoms or require hospitalization and advanced medical care, as in case of severe pneumonia with respiratory insufficiency, which potentially leads to death [1]. The emergence of four SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) at the end of 2020 has raised apprehensions about a possible reduced performance of currently available vaccines. Following the World Health Organization (WHO)’s lead, these variants are referred to as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron. Omicron, the currently widespread dominant variant, was first detected in November 2021 [1]. The literature suggests that Omicron has an increased transmissibility compared to the Delta variant and that current vaccines are less effective against Omicron infection, but they still protect against hospitalization and severe disease. Severity of COVID-19 is associated with increased age and pre-existing or underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer [2,3].
Pregnant women with COVID-19 were identified as a vulnerable or higher risk population as well, since they are at increased risk of developing severe illness, hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and death compared with non-pregnant women [4,5,6]. A multinational observational study conducted in 18 countries showed that pregnant women with a diagnosis of COVID-19 had a greater risk of admission to the ICU or high-dependency unit (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.13–8.10) and were 22 times more likely to die (RR, 22.3; 95% CI, 2.88–172) [7]. Furthermore, a review showed that pregnant women with COVID-19 are exposed to a higher risk of adverse fetal consequences, such as preterm delivery (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.14–1.91), stillbirth (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.25–6.45) and admission to the neonatal ICU (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.87–12.81) compared with pregnant uninfected women [4], while asymptomatic women had rates that were similar to the uninfected [8].
Vaccination seems to be the most cost-effective strategy to prevent adverse outcomes for the mother and fetus in case of infection from SARS-CoV-2. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage among pregnant women was initially lower than in the general population of the same age. The main reason could be that the first official recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women was too vague, due to the lack of a position statement and explicit recommendations from scientific societies [9]. Furthermore, the exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from preauthorization clinical trials contributed to uncertainty about the immunogenicity and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in these cohorts [10]. Because of this lack of evidence, at the beginning of January 2021, the WHO stated that vaccination should be made available to “pregnant women who are in those groups at high risk of exposure (healthcare workers (HCWs) or women with comorbidities), after a discussion of the risks and benefits of vaccination with their health care provider” [11]. A few days after this, the Italian Obstetric Surveillance System (ItOSS) and the Italian Institute of Health (ISS) published their first interim guidelines following the WHO recommendations [12]. Consequently, HCWs had to assess the balance between potential risk and benefits on an individual basis, and advocated for vaccination only for breastfeeding and pregnant women at high risk of exposure to the virus, such as women who work in the healthcare front line or those who have comorbidities. Afterwards, on 22 September 2021, the ISS updated its guidelines and established that pregnant and lactating women are eligible to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, since studies have shown that their safety profiles are similar to non-pregnant and non-lactating individuals. On 13 December 2021, the ISS further updated the indications and recommended that the booster dose be offered to pregnant women who are in the second and third trimester and desire to be vaccinated [13,14]. On 7 October 2022, the Italian Health Ministry announced the approval of the fourth anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose for pregnant women [13].
In the meanwhile, inadvertent exposure to mRNA vaccination during pregnancy, reported in some clinical trials where women were unaware that they were pregnant, has contributed to filling the knowledge gap on the safety and efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [15,16,17]. It was only in February 2021 that the first phase of a 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind vaccine trial including healthy pregnant women (Pfizer–BioNTech, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04754594) was begun. Later, evidence emerged supporting the safety and efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy [17], leading to increasing support for vaccination of pregnant and lactating women. A large observational cohort study of pregnant women highlighted that the estimated vaccine effectiveness 7–56 days after the second dose was 96% for any documented infection, 97% for symptomatic infection and 89% for COVID-19-related hospitalization [18]. Preliminary findings from three U.S. vaccine safety monitoring systems have so far not shown any safety signals among pregnant women who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines [17].
Vaccine-induced immunity in pregnant and lactating women and their newborns has been widely assessed: immune transfer of neutralizing anti-Spike IgG and T-cells from the mother to the newborn occurs through the placenta and breastmilk, which foster the breastfeeding infant’s developing immune system, suggesting a potential prevention of infection [10,19,20,21]. Current studies show that the pregnancy trimester does not affect SARS-CoV-2 antibody production [22].
There is a paucity of literature about anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination attitudes among women who are currently experiencing a pregnancy at high risk of obstetrical complications. The purpose of this study is to examine the acceptability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy, and factors associated with it, in a cohort of high-risk pregnant women through a cognitive-behavioral model.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2021 to December 2021, and the consecutive recruitment was planned in the high-risk pregnancy outpatient services of two hospitals in Palermo, Italy. During the study period, 331 women attended the two facilities for pregnant women at high risk of obstetric complications. Pregnant women were recruited based on the following inclusion criteria: women aged 18 years or above; high-risk pregnant women who attended antenatal care in the two participating hospitals; and participants who gave their written informed consent to participate in the study following the explanation of the study’s purpose. Afterwards, the participants completed an anonymous and self-administered paper-based questionnaire, which was developed using a previous questionnaire [23], and it was validated in a convenience sample of pregnant women.
The questionnaire was divided into three parts: the first one concerning socio-demographic factors, the second one concerning health status, and the third one about attitudes toward acceptance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including health beliefs related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Socio-demographic factors included: age, citizenship, place of residence, marital status, education and occupation. Health status included: parity (cumulative number of pregnancies, as reported by the participant), chronic diseases (diagnosed before pregnancy) and gestational complications (referring to diseases diagnosed during the current pregnancy such as gestational diabetes mellitus, gestational hypertension, gestational thyroid disorder and gestational anemia). The third part focused on anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, investigating vaccination uptake, vaccine willingness, sources of information about anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and a section related to the Health Belief Model (HBM) on vaccination acceptance. The acceptance of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was evaluated according to the answer to the question “Are you willing to take the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine?”. Furthermore, participants were queried about their sources of information on the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (web consultation, books, newspapers, gynecologist, general practitioner (GP), television, other practitioners, friends and family). To further assess the factors related to attitudes toward the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the behavioral-cognitive attitude was analyzed. Several theoretical frameworks have been applied to understand and predict vaccine intention and behavior, such as the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the HBM [24]. The HBM theorizes that individuals are more willing to adopt behaviors in order to prevent diseases (such as vaccination) if they perceive that they are at increased risk to get a disease (perceived susceptibility), the disease and its consequences are harmful (perceived severity), the barriers to overcome in order to perform the behavior are minimal (perceived barriers) and the behavior is effective in reducing the risk of getting a disease (perceived benefits) [24].
The questionnaire used in this study adopted the HBM, using 8 questions: perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 for mother and infant (2 items), perceived severity of COVID-19 for mother and infant (2 items), perceived barriers to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (2 items) and benefits of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (2 items). The answers to the HBM were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1—Strongly disagree” to “5—Strongly agree”. For each respondent, the scores relating to the 2 items of the same domain were added (range score 2–10 per domain) and the median value was calculated (median score = 8). The median value was used as a cutoff to recategorize the score for each domain as “High level” ≥ 8 or “Medium-Low level” < 8.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee Palermo 1 (protocol code 11/2020 at 18/12/2020).

Statistical Analysis

The sample size (n = 213) was estimated using an expected prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage of 60%, a confidence level of 95%, and an expected refusal of 10%. Socio-demographic characteristics and vaccination acceptance of all the recruited pregnant women were summarized using frequencies and percentages. To evaluate the distribution of quantitative variables such as age, the skewness and kurtosis test was performed. Mean and standard deviation (SD) were chosen for the normal distribution of these variables, while median and interquartile range (IQR) were used for the non-normal distribution. The differences in quantitative variables normally and not normally distributed among vaccination acceptance were evaluated, respectively, with the Student t test and with the Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney test; while for the qualitative variables, the Chi2 test was used.
Bivariable analyses were performed to assess the associations between factors hypothesized to be associated with vaccination acceptance, including socio-demographic characteristics, health status and HBM items (Odds ratio (OR) with a confidence interval of 95%). The significant (p < 0.05) factors associated in bivariable analyses were run into a multivariable logistic regression model in order to identify predictors of vaccination and intention to be vaccinated. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata/SE 14.2 (Copyright 1985–2015, StataCorp LLC, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX 77845, U.S. Revision 29 January 2018).

3. Results

Overall, 237 women were eligible for the study, and 233 (98.3%) filled out the questionnaire. Table 1 describes the socio-demographic characteristics and health statuses of enrolled women. The mean age of the respondents was 32 years (SD ± 5.72). Pregnant women were more frequently Italian (97.5%; n = 227), currently living in the city of Palermo (59.6%; n = 139) and were at their first pregnancy (40.7%; n = 95). Concerning educational status, only a small proportion of respondents (21.4%, n = 50) had a college educational background or above, while two thirds of the participants (65.2%, n = 153) were unemployed (housewives and students). Regarding health status, enrolled women more frequently had more than one parity (59.3%; n = 138) and no chronic disease (70.8%; n = 165).
Regarding the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, two thirds of the sample (65.2%; n = 152) reported that they were willing to vaccinate. Women who accepted the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than women who did not accept it (27% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001).
Table 2 shows the answers related to the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the HBM assumptions. Less than half of the enrolled women (46.8%, n = 109) had already received the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The source of information on vaccination most frequently reported was the mass media (36%, n = 84), followed by a gynecologist (30.4%, n=71) and a GP (22.3%, n = 52). Among the people who accepted the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, their gynecologist was more frequently the source of information (38.1% vs. 16.1%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, regarding the susceptibility items of the HBM, pregnant women who accepted the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were more concerned about getting COVID-19 (strongly agree: 50% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.01). Similarly, those who accepted anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were more concerned about the risk for their unborn babies to be infected by COVID-19 (strongly agree: 54% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.01). In the barriers dimension of the HBM, pregnant women who accepted vaccination were more likely to believe that the vaccination is safe during pregnancy and effective against SARS-CoV-2 (safety: strongly agree 28.3% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.01, effectiveness: strongly agree 36.8% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.01). In the benefits dimension, those who accepted the vaccination were more likely to strongly agree with the benefit of vaccination for themselves (41.4% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.01) and their fetuses (39.5% vs 6.2%, p < 0.01) than those who did not accept vaccination.
The bivariable analysis (Table 3) showed that having a bachelor’s degree or above (cOR 4.74; 95% CI 1.58–5.6), being at a first pregnancy (cOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.27–0.85), not reporting any pre-existing chronic disease (cOR 1.85; 95% CI 1.02–3.35) and having a gynecologist as a source of information (cOR 3.18, 95% CI 1.28–7.92) were statistically significant factors in association with vaccination acceptance.
The multivariable logistic regression model (Table 3), after adjusting for confounding variables, demonstrated that having a high school diploma (aOR 4.52; 95% CI 1.79–11.39), receiving a gynecologist’s advice (aOR 2.55; 95% CI 1.57–4.14), and a low level of perceived barriers to vaccination (aOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45–0.86) were independently associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to assess women’s willingness to receive the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during a pregnancy at high risk of obstetric complications. Overall, anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance in this study (65.2%) was similar to that shown in a previous study (65%) conducted before the vaccines were approved for pregnant women [25]. Although evidence about safety and efficacy became clearer and the vaccination was openly endorsed by scientific societies, there is still not a full acceptance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine by pregnant women. The literature showed that anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy was even more common during pregnancy, and that the main reason for vaccination refusal among pregnant women was the fear of potential consequences for their fetus or themselves [26]. The vaccine hesitancy was related not only to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [27], but also to seasonal influenza and pertussis vaccines, two long-lasting recommended maternal vaccinations [28].
One of the factors associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance is a higher educational level. It has been already defined as a strong positive predictor of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance in pregnant women, but also as a facilitator for pertussis and influenza vaccination during pregnancy [27]. A scoping review about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy determinants in high-income countries has identified a lower educational level as a demographic characteristic that is strongly related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [29]. This may be explained in different ways. First, a highly educated woman is likely to have better health knowledge, so she is more prone to perform healthy behaviors and make healthier lifestyle choices [30]. Second, a high educational level is often associated with a better economic status and, as a consequence, with greater access to quality healthcare and a high communication level with HCWs [31]. Third, a well-educated woman has greater access to different information sources, so she is less likely to be biased by inaccurate information about vaccines spreading on the Internet, leading to fewer probable potential misunderstandings about the safety of vaccines [32].
Another factor associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance was the gynecologist as the main source of information. Literature has already shown that gynecologists’ recommendations have been critical means to encourage pregnant women to get vaccinated [33]. The gynecologist indeed has far more opportunities during prenatal care than the GP to advise pregnant women on whether to vaccinate. The gynecologist is the healthcare provider whom women trust the most, and is able to counter widespread misinformation about the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In our study, about half of the participants received information from health care providers (GP, gynecologist, other HCWs), while the remaining ones personally acquired their knowledge from journals, television, and web consultations. Those findings are different from a previous study about maternal vaccinations, in which HCWs were reported as a source of information by three quarters of surveyed women [33]. This finding raises concerns about the role that media have been playing in spreading information about the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, as it has been proven that misinformation, both online and offline, lowers anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence [34], and erroneous messages from one’s network of trust (e.g., friends and family) can create a barrier to vaccination [32]. Furthermore, the decline of HCWs as the main source of information also highlights that mistrust in the healthcare system and health institutions has been increasing in Italy since the beginning of the pandemic [35].
Furthermore, the HBM predicted vaccine acceptance in pregnancy. In relation to this model, the perception of barriers was another determinant associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine approval in pregnancy. The finding that a high perception of barriers is negatively associated with a willingness to vaccinate is consistent with the results of other studies regarding vaccine-preventable diseases [36,37]. The present survey refers to “barriers” to the vaccination in pregnancy as those related to vaccine safety and the belief that the vaccine is not beneficial. Women who reject immunization, indeed, fear a potential threat to themselves or their fetus, since they are worried about the safety of vaccines, and believe that the benefits are darkened by the perceived negative maternal and fetal effects of vaccines [38]. To counteract this effect, communication strategies around the safety and effectiveness of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pregnancy should be implemented by HCWs that pregnant women trust, especially gynecologists.
In accordance with the benefit perception of the HBM, only half of the recruited women reported that they were aware that anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnant women protects the newborn in the first months of life in case of COVID-19 (moderately and strongly agree: 49.3%, n = 115). This low percentage may be due to the lack of appropriate counseling by the HCWs who meet women during their pregnancies about the benefits of conferring protection to the fetus and infant after birth. Public health decision-makers should promote effective interventions by healthcare providers, especially gynecologists and midwives, in order to implement vaccine uptake in pregnant women and target common misconceptions about maternal immunization [39]. A systematic review has highlighted a significant increase in vaccination uptake after interventions in pregnant women [40]. For example, a study offering onsite vaccination to pregnant women during antenatal visits in order to increase uptake showed a positive association between onsite availability of pertussis vaccine and maternal pertussis receipt during pregnancy [41]. Therefore, since the establishment of a trust-based relationship between a pregnant woman and her gynecologist is necessary for maternal immunization decision-making, these professionals have the responsibility of counseling pregnant women during antenatal visits in order to increase vaccination uptake and improve maternal and neonatal health.
Some limitations should be reported for the current study. First, it was based on the experiences of 233 women and, in spite of the heterogeneity of the sample, the analysis is representative of a single geographic area and not of the whole Italian obstetric population. Second, the survey was anonymous, so it was not possible to have access to medical and immunization records to validate self-reported vaccination status. Notwithstanding these limitations, the present survey is one of the first Italian studies on the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine conducted before maternal visits. It provides important information about the factors associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.

5. Conclusions

Anti-SAR-CoV-2 vaccines were not fully accepted among the obstetric population. The reasons behind the low vaccination uptake were mainly to be found in the low level of knowledge about the disease and the lack of recommendations from healthcare providers, which caused doubts about vaccine safety, efficacy and benefits. It is necessary to understand the population’s vaccination barriers in order to improve maternal immunization on a local and national level more effectively, by providing tailored intervention programs for pregnant women.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and V.R.; methodology, M.M., V.R., G.G., A.B. and G.M.; software, V.R. and A.B.; validation, M.M., G.G., A.B. and G.M.; formal analysis, V.R.; investigation, M.M. and G.G.; resources, G.C., A.M., A.C. and V.R.; data curation, V.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.; writing—review and editing, M.M., G.G., G.M. and A.C.; visualization, M.M.; supervision, G.C., A.M. and A.C.; project administration, M.M. and V.R.; funding acquisition, G.C., A.M. and A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee Palermo 1 (protocol code 11/2020 on 18 December 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available upon request sent to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. COVID-19 Updates. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19 (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  2. Fedele, G.; Trentini, F.; Schiavoni, I.; Abrignani, S.; Antonelli, G.; Baldo, V.; Baldovin, T.; Bandera, A.; Bonura, F.; Clerici, P.; et al. Evaluation of humoral and cellular response to four vaccines against COVID-19 in different age groups: A longitudinal study. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1021396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Amodio, E.; Genovese, D.; Mazzeo, L.; Martino, L.; Restivo, V.; Vella, G.; Calamusa, G.; Vitale, F. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Adolescents Over 6 Months. Pediatrics 2022, 150, e2022057394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Allotey, P.; Stallings, E.; Bonet, M.; Yap, M.; Chatterjee, S.; Kew, T.; Debenham, L.; Llavall, A.C.; Dixit, A.; Zhou, D.; et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020, 370, m3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gullo, G.; Cucinella, G.; Tumminello, M.; Renda, B.; Donzelli, M.; Lo Bue, V.; Termini, D.; Maranto, M.; De Tommasi, O.; Tarantino, F. Convalescent plasma use in pregnant patients with COVID-19 related ARDS: A case report and a literature review. Ital. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2022, 34, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gullo, G.; Scaglione, M.; Cucinella, G.; Riva, A.; Coldebella, D.; Cavaliere, A.F.; Signore, F.; Buzzaccarini, G.; Spagnol, G.; Laganà, A.S.; et al. Congenital Zika Syndrome: Genetic Avenues for Diagnosis and Therapy, Possible Management and Long-Term Outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Thiruvengadam, R.; Rauch, S.; Kholin, A.; Roggero, P.; Prefumo, F.; Silva do Vale, M.; Cardona-Perez, J.A.; Maiz, N. Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality Among Pregnant Women With and Without COVID-19 Infection: The INTERCOVID Multinational Cohort Study. JAMA Pediatr. 2021, 175, 817–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Crovetto, F.; Crispi, F.; Llurba, E.; Pascal, R.; Larroya, M.; Trilla, C. Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Population-based Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, 1768–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Food & Drug Administration. Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry. Available online: https://www.fda.gov (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  10. Wang, P.H.h.; Lee, W.L.; Yang, S.T.; Tsui, K.H.; Chang, C.C.; Lee, F.K. The impact of COVID-19 in pregnancy: Part II. Vaccination to pregnant women. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2021, 84, 903–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. World Health Organization. Interim Recommendations for Use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing. Interim Guidance. 2021. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1326072/retrieve (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  12. Italian Obstetric Surveillance System (ItOSS) and Italian Health Insititute. Interim Indications about COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding. Available online: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/vaccini/pdf/Documento-ItOSS-vaccino-anti-covid-19-gravidanza-allattamento_9%20gennaio-2021.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2021).
  13. Italian Health Insititute. COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding. Available online: www.epicentro.iss.it/en/vaccines/covid-19-pregnancy-breastfeeding (accessed on 7 October 2022).
  14. Craxì, L.; Casuccio, A.; Amodio, E.; Restivo, V. Who Should Get COVID-19 Vaccine First? A Survey to Evaluate Hospital Workers’ Opinion. Vaccines 2021, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Food & Drug Administration. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048). Available online: www.fda.gov/media/144246/download (accessed on 13 December 2022).
  16. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting 17 December 2020. FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Available online: www.fda.gov/media/144434/download (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  17. Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Public assessment Report Authorization for Temporary Supply. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, Solution for Injection in Multidose Container COVID-19 Vaccine. Available online: www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949772/UKPAR_COVID_19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca_05.01.2021.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  18. Shimabukuro, T.T.; Kim, S.Y.; Myers, T.R.; Moro, P.L.; Oduyebo, T.; Panagiotakopoulos, L.; Marquez, P.L.; Olson, C.K.; Liu, R.; Chang, K.T.; et al. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 2273–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dagan, N.; Barda, N.; Biron-Shental, T.; Makov-Assif, M.; Key, C.; Kohane, I.; Hernán, M.; Lipsitch, M.; Hernandez-Diaz, S.; Reis, B.; et al. Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1693–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Atyeo, C.; DeRiso, E.A.; Davis, C.; Bordt, E.A.; DeGuzman, R.M.; Shook, L.L.; Yonker, L.M.; Fasano, A.; Akinwunmi, B.; Lauffenburger, D.A.; et al. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines drive differential antibody Fc-functional profiles in pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women. Sci. Transl. Med. 2021, 13, eabi8631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Rottenstreich, A.; Zarbiv, G.; OiknineDjian, E.; Zigron, R.; Wolf, D.G.; Porat, S. Efficient Maternofetal Transplacental Transfer of Anti- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike Antibodies After Antenatal SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Messenger RNA Vaccination. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, 1909–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shook, L.L.; Edlow, A.G. Safety and Efficacy of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccines During Lactation. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gray, K.J.; Bordt, E.A.; Atyeo, C.; Deriso, E.; Akinwunmi, B.; Young, N.; Baez, A.M.; Shook, L.L.; Cvrk, D.; James, K.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: A cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Chen, Y. Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women in Zhejiang Province, China: Evidence Based on Health Belief Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ryan, M.; Marlow, L.A.V.; Forster, A. Countering Vaccine Hesitancy among Pregnant Women in England: The Case of Boostrix-IPV. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 10, 4984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sznajder, K.K.; Kjerulff, K.H.; Wang, M.; Hwang, W.; Ramirez, S.I.; Gandhi, C.K. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and associated factors among pregnant women in Pennsylvania. Prev. Med. Rep. 2022, 26, 101713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amodio, E.; Minutolo, G.; Casuccio, A.; Costantino, C.; Graziano, G.; Mazzucco, W.; Pieri, A.; Vitale, F.; Zarcone, M.; Restivo, V. Adverse Reactions to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on an Active Surveillance System. Vaccines 2022, 10, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stuckelberger, S.; Favre, G.; Ceulemans, M.; Nordeng, H.; Gerbier, E.; Lambelet, V.; Stojanov, M.; Winterfeld, U.; Baud, D.; Panchaud, A.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Willingness among Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women during the First Pandemic Wave: A Cross-sectional study in Switzerland. Viruses 2021, 13, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wilson, R.J.; Paterson, P.; Jarrett, C.; Larson, H.J. Understanding factors influencing vaccination acceptance during pregnancy globally: A literature review. Vaccine 2015, 33, 6420–6429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Aw, J.; Seng, J.J.B.; Seah, S.S.Y.; Low, L.L. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy-A Scoping Review of Literature in High-Income Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. D’Alessandro, A.; Napolitano, F.; D’Ambrosio, A.; Angelillo, I.F. Vaccination knowledge and acceptability among pregnant women in Italy Vaccination knowledge and acceptability among pregnant women in Italy. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2018, 14, 1573–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Forshaw, J.; Gerver, S.M.; Gill, M.; Cooper, E.; Manikam, L.; Ward, H. The global effect of maternal education on complete childhood vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Restivo, V.; Cernigliaro, A.; Palmeri, S.; Sinatra, I.; Costantino, C.; Casuccio, A. The Socio-Economic Health Deprivation Index and its association with mortality and attitudes towards influenza vaccination among the elderly in Palermo, Sicily. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2019, 59 (Suppl. 2), 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marchetti, F.; Verazza, S.; Brambilla, M.; Restivo, V. Rotavirus and the web: Analysis of online conversations in Italy during 2020. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2002087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Karafillakis, E.; Francis, M.R.; Paterson, P.; Larson, H.J. Trust, emotions and risks: Pregnant women’s perceptions, confidence and decision-making practices around maternal vaccination in France. Vaccine 2021, 39, 4117–4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Loomba, S.; de Figueiredo, A.; Piatek, S.J.; de Graaf, K.; Larson, H.J. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Palamenghi, L.; Barello, S.; Boccia, S.; Graffigna, G. Mistrust in biomedical research and vaccine hesitancy: The forefront challenge in the battle against COVID-19 in Italy. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 785–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, M.F.; Wang, R.H.; Schneider, J.K.; Tsai, C.T.; Jiang, D.D.; Hung, M.N. Using the health belief model to understand caregiver factors influencing childhood influenza vaccinations. J. Community Health Nurs. 2011, 28, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fallucca, A.; Immordino, P.; Riggio, L.; Casuccio, A.; Vitale, F.; Restivo, V. Acceptability of HPV Vaccination in Young Students by Exploring Health Belief Model and Health Literacy. Vaccines 2022, 10, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Restivo, V.; Candore, G.; Barrale, M.; Caravello, E.; Graziano, G.; Onida, R.; Raineri, M.; Tiralongo, S.; Brusca, I. Allergy to Polyethilenglicole of Anti-SARS CoV2 Vaccine Recipient: A Case Report of Young Adult Recipient and the Management of Future Exposure to SARS-CoV2. Vaccines 2021, 9, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Restivo, V.; Orsi, A.; Ciampini, S.; Messano, G.A.; Trucchi, C.; Ventura, G.; Casuccio, A.; Vitale, F. How should vaccination services be planned, organized, and managed? Results from a survey on the Italian vaccination services. Ann. Ig. 2019, 31 (Suppl. 1), 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and health statuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study about anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and health statuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study about anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
TotalAnti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptancep Value
Socio-Demographic Characteristicsn = 233Yes = 152No = 81
Age32.1 [26.3–37.8]32.6 [27–38.2]31.2 [25.7–36.7]0.09
Citizenship
Italian227 (97.5%)148 (97.4%)79 (97.5%)0.94
Non-Italian6 (2.5%)4 (2.6%)2 (2.5%)
Area of residence 1
Palermo139 (59.6%)94 (61.8%)45 (55.5%)0.18
Other cities than Palermo92 (39.4%)56 (36.8%)36 (44.4%)
Marital status
Married224 (96.2%)146 (96%)78 (96.2%)0.92
Not married or divorced or separated9 (3.8%)6 (4%)3 (3.8%)
Educational level 1
Less than high school diploma100 (42.9%)49 (32.7%)51 (62.9%)<0.001
High school diploma81 (34.7%)60 (40%)21 (24.3%)
Bachelor’s degree or above50 (21.4%)41 (27%)9 (11.1%)
Employment status 1 0.09
Unemployed or student or housewife153 (65.6%)95 (62.5%)58 (73.4%)
Employed78 (33.4%)57 (37.5%)21 (26.6%)
Health status
Parity at enrolment
One95 (40.7%)71 (46.7%)24 (29.6%)0.01
More than one138 (59.3%)81 (53.3%)57 (70.4%)
Gestational complications 1 0.74
Yes35 (15%)22 (14.7%)13 (16%)
No193 (82.8%)127 (85.3%)66 (83.5%)
Chronic diseases 1 0.04
Yes64 (27.4%)35 (23.5%)29 (36.2%)
No165 (70.8%)114 (76.5%)51 (63.7%)
1 Missing values: n. 2 (area of residence, educational level, employment status), n. 5 (gestational complications), n. 4 (chronic diseases).
Table 2. Vaccination and Health Belief Model characteristics of the pregnant women by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
Table 2. Vaccination and Health Belief Model characteristics of the pregnant women by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
TotalAnti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptancep Value
n = 233Yes = 152No = 81
SARS-CoV-2 vaccination 1
Have you already received the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine?
Yes109 (46.8%)101 (66.5%)8 (9.9%)<0.001
No122 (52.4%)50 (32.9%)72 (88.9%)
Source of information on anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccine 1,2
Nobody18 (7.7%)7 (4.6%)11 (13.6%)0.02
Media (television, web consultations)84 (36%)60 (39.4%)20 (29.6%)0.19
Books, newspapers22 (9.4%)15 (9.8%)8 (9.8%)0.74
Friends, acquaintances and family20 (8.5%)13 (8.5%)7 (8.6%)0.98
Gynecologist71 (30.0%)58 (38.1%)13 (16.1%)<0.001
GP52 (22.3%)32 (21.05%)20 (24.7%)0.52
Other physicians13 (5.5%)11 (7.2%)2 (2.4%)0.13
Other6 (2.5%)5 (3.3%)1 (1.2%)0.01
HBM items
Perception of susceptibility
Are you aware that you can get COVID-19?
Strongly disagree8 (3.4%)1 (0.7%)7 (8.6%)<0.001
Disagree15(6.4%)4 (2.6%)11 (13.6%)
Neutral50 (21.5%)28 (18.4%)22 (27.2%)
Agree57 (24.5%)43 (28.3%)14 (17.3%)
Strongly agree103 (44.2%)76 (50.0%)27 (33.3%)
Are you aware that you can transmit the SARS-CoV2 to your fetus if you have COVID-19?
Strongly disagree18 (7.7%)5 (3.3%)13 (16.1%)0.001
Disagree18 (7.7%)11 (7.2%)7 (8.6%)
Neutral52 (22.3%)28 (18.4%)24 (29.7%)
Agree36 (15.5%)26 (17.1%)10 (12.3%)
Strongly agree109 (46.8%)82 (54.0%)27 (33.3%)
Perception of severity
If a pregnant woman gets COVID-19, is she more likely to have a severe disease?
Strongly disagree33 (14.1%)16 (10.5%)17 (21.0%)0.08
Disagree17 (7.3%)9 (5.9%)8 (9.9%)
Neutral77 (33.1%)52 (34.2%)25 (30.8%)
Agree58 (24.9%)38 (25.0%)20 (24.7%)
Strongly agree48 (20.6%)37 (24.4%)11 (13.6%)
If a pregnant woman gets COVID-19, can the disease harm the unborn baby?
Strongly disagree25 (10.7%)10 (6.6%)15 (18.5%)0.02
Disagree29 (12.5%)18 (11.9%)11 (13.6%)
Neutral67 (28.7%)42 (27.6%)25 (30.9%)
Agree65 (27.9%)45 (29.6%)20 (24.7%)
Strongly agree47 (20.1%)37 (24.3%)10 (12.3%)
Perception of barriers
Is it safe to administer anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccine during pregnancy?
Strongly disagree41 (17.6%)12 (7.9%)29 (35.8%)<0.001
Disagree24 (10.3%)11 (7.2%)13 (16.1%)
Neutral79 (33.9%)52 (34.2%)27 (33.3%)
Agree40 (17.2%)34 (22.4%)6 (7.4%)
Strongly agree49 (21.0%)43 (28.3%)6 (7.4%)
Is anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccine an effective measure to prevent COVID-19 in pregnant women?
Strongly disagree29 (12.4%)7 (4.6%)22 (27.2%)<0.001
Disagree23 (9.8%)8 (5.3%)15 (18.5%)
Neutral75 (32.9%)44 (29.0%)31 (38.3%)
Agree47 (20.1%)37 (24.3%)10 (12.3%)
Strongly agree59 (25.3%)56 (36.8%)3 (3.7%)
Perception of benefits
Is anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccine efficacious during pregnancy?
Strongly disagree29 (12.4%)6 (3.9%)23 (28.4%)<0.001
Disagree21 (9%)8 (5.3%)13 (16.0%)
Neutral69 (29.6%)41 (27.0%)28 (34.6%)
Agree46 (19.8%)34 (22.4%)12 (14.8%)
Strongly agree68 (29.2%)63 (41.4%)5 (6.2%)
Can the SARS-CoV2 vaccination protect the newborn in the first months of life?
Strongly disagree30 (12.9%)9 (5.9%)21 (25.9%)<0.001
Disagree27 (11.6%)7 (4.6%)20 (24.7%)
Neutral61 (26.2%)39 (25.7%)22 (27.2%)
Agree50 (21.4%)37 (24.3%)13 (16.0%)
Strongly agree65 (27.9%)60 (39.5%)5 (6.2%)
1 Missing values: n. 2 (SARS-CoV-2 vaccination), n. 21 (Source of information). 2 More than one answer was possible.
Table 3. Bivariable and multivariable analyses of factors associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
Table 3. Bivariable and multivariable analyses of factors associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance.
Crude ORCI 95%pAdjusted ORCI95%p
Age 1.040.99–1.090.090.950.88–1.020.19
CitizenshipNon-Italianref
Italian0.930.16–5.220.94
Area of residencePalermoref
Other cities than Palermo1.020.69–1.510.894
Marital statusNot married or divorced or separatedref
Married0.930.22–3.840.93
Educational levelLess than high schoolref ref
High school diploma2.961.57–5.600.0014.521.79–11.390.001
Bachelor’s degree or above4.742.08–10.77<0.0014.350.98–19.260.052
Employment statusUnemployed or student or housewiferef ref
Employed1.650.91–3.020.090.540.19–1.510.24
Health status
ParityOneref ref
More than one0.480.27–0.850.010.490.22–1.100.08
Gestational complicationsYesref
No1.130.53–2.400.34
Chronic diseasesYesref ref
No1.851.02–3.350.042.060.92–4.580.08
Source of information (yes vs no)Nobody0.300.11–0.820.020.410.10–1.690.22
Media (television, web consultations)1.490.81–2.740.19
Books, newspapers0.850.33–2.150.73
Friends, acquaintances and family0.980.37–2.580.98
Gynecologist 3.221.64–6.35<0.0013.181.28–7.920.01
GP0.810.43–1.540.52
Other physicians3.080.66–14.250.15
HBM items
Perceived susceptibilityLow-Medium levelref ref
High level1.371.2–1.57<0.0011.020.83–1.260.813
Perceived severityLow-Medium levelref ref
High level1.221.07–1.370.010.890.72–1.100.302
Perceived barriersLow-Medium levelref ref
High level0.590.5–0.68<0.0010.630.45–0.860.005
Perceived benefitsLow-Medium levelref ref
High level1.631.42–1.88<0.0011.240.92–1.670.153
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maranto, M.; Gullo, G.; Bruno, A.; Minutolo, G.; Cucinella, G.; Maiorana, A.; Casuccio, A.; Restivo, V. Factors Associated with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: Data from Outpatient Women Experiencing High-Risk Pregnancy. Vaccines 2023, 11, 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020454

AMA Style

Maranto M, Gullo G, Bruno A, Minutolo G, Cucinella G, Maiorana A, Casuccio A, Restivo V. Factors Associated with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: Data from Outpatient Women Experiencing High-Risk Pregnancy. Vaccines. 2023; 11(2):454. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020454

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maranto, Marianna, Giuseppe Gullo, Alessandra Bruno, Giuseppa Minutolo, Gaspare Cucinella, Antonio Maiorana, Alessandra Casuccio, and Vincenzo Restivo. 2023. "Factors Associated with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: Data from Outpatient Women Experiencing High-Risk Pregnancy" Vaccines 11, no. 2: 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020454

APA Style

Maranto, M., Gullo, G., Bruno, A., Minutolo, G., Cucinella, G., Maiorana, A., Casuccio, A., & Restivo, V. (2023). Factors Associated with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: Data from Outpatient Women Experiencing High-Risk Pregnancy. Vaccines, 11(2), 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020454

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop