Special Issue "Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy"

A special issue of Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X). This special issue belongs to the section "Vaccines and Society".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 July 2020).

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Helen A. Petousis-Harris
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
Interests: vaccine safety; meningococcal vaccines; pertussis vaccines; pneumococcal vaccines; HPV vaccines; vaccine effectiveness; datalinkage; vaccine communications

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

As public hesitancy toward vaccines increases throughout the world, practical solutions are desperately needed. This issue is complex, with no simple solution to it. However, research in this space has identified a range of multifaceted strategies that can have positive effects. This Special Issue focuses on the science of reducing vaccine hesitancy and improving vaccine uptake across diverse populations.

Dr. Helen A. Petousis-Harris
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Vaccines is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (13 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

Open AccessArticle
A Consent Support Resource with Benefits and Harms of Vaccination Does Not Increase Hesitancy in Parents—An Acceptability Study
Vaccines 2020, 8(3), 500; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030500 - 02 Sep 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1065
Abstract
It is unclear whether information given about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination during consent may cue parental vaccine hesitancy. Parents were surveyed before and after reading vaccine consent information at a public expo event in Sydney, Australia. We measured vaccine [...] Read more.
It is unclear whether information given about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination during consent may cue parental vaccine hesitancy. Parents were surveyed before and after reading vaccine consent information at a public expo event in Sydney, Australia. We measured vaccine hesitancy with Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccine Short Scale (PACV-SS), informed decision-making with Informed Subscale of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS-IS), items from Stage of Decision Making, Positive Attitude Assessment, Vaccine Safety and Side Effect Concern, and Vaccine Communication Framework (VCF) tools. Overall, 416 parents showed no change in vaccine hesitancy (mean PACV-SS score pre = 1.97, post = 1.94; diff = −0.02 95% CI −0.10 to 0.15) but were more informed (mean DCS-IS score pre = 29.05, post = 7.41; diff = −21.63 95% CI −24.17 to −18.56), were more positive towards vaccination (pre = 43.8% post = 50.4%; diff = 6.5% 95% CI 3.0% to 10.0%), less concerned about vaccine safety (pre = 28.5%, post = 23.0%, diff = −5.6% 95% CI −2.3% to −8.8%) and side effects (pre = 37.0%, post = 29.0%, diff = −8.0% 95% CI −4.0% to −12.0%) with no change in stage of decision-making or intention to vaccinate. Providing information about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination increases parents’ informed decision-making without increasing vaccine hesitancy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Causality Assessment Guidelines for Adverse Events Following Immunization with a Focus on Guillain–Barré Syndrome
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010101 - 24 Feb 2020
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1177
Abstract
South Korea operates a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for people who experience adverse events following immunization (AEFI). To run this program rationally, it is a prerequisite to confirm whether adverse events were caused by immunization. Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a severe neurological [...] Read more.
South Korea operates a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for people who experience adverse events following immunization (AEFI). To run this program rationally, it is a prerequisite to confirm whether adverse events were caused by immunization. Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a severe neurological disease with limb pain and muscle weakness as cardinal symptoms, is attracting attention as an AEFI. However, algorithm or guidelines for assessing the causality between vaccination and the incidence of GBS are lacking. We aimed to develop guidelines for causality assessment of GBS as an AEFI and suggest using these guidelines in alignment with the VICP. We systematically searched for other previously published algorithms or guidelines and found a WHO-AEFI guideline used worldwide; however, it only provides general instructions and is not tailored to specific adverse events. We translated and locally adapted the structure of this guideline and then added contents related to GBS. The GBS-specific guideline consists of four steps: case ascertainment of GBS, checklist (including (1) order of incidence, (2) temporal proximity, (3) evidence for other causes and (4) published evidence), an algorithm, and final classification. We listed key information on confirming GBS and whether any other causes of GBS were present. For real world application of the guideline along with the VICP, we collaborated with a panel of neurologists, epidemiologic investigators, and committee members from the VICP. To ensure transparency and a scientific approach, regular updates and collaboration with neurologists are essential. We expect that this guideline will contribute to logical causality assessment and compensation decisions for GBS and will provide the basic structure for causality assessment of other AEFIs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
An Exploratory Study of Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Healthcare Workers in a Western Chinese City, 2018–2019: Improving Target Population Coverage Based on Policy Interventions
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 92; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010092 - 19 Feb 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 827
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate a policy-based intervention to increase seasonal-influenza-vaccination coverage in healthcare workers in Xining, a city in Western China. Methods: From October 2018 to March 2019, we implemented a free vaccination policy in healthcare workers in Xining. A face-to-face interview with the [...] Read more.
Objectives: To evaluate a policy-based intervention to increase seasonal-influenza-vaccination coverage in healthcare workers in Xining, a city in Western China. Methods: From October 2018 to March 2019, we implemented a free vaccination policy in healthcare workers in Xining. A face-to-face interview with the head of the infection control department and an online survey for medical staff in four tertiary medical facilities was conducted to understand both the implementation of the free policy and influenza vaccination coverage. Possible factors for influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (physician, nurses working on the front-line, HCWs) were investigated by multivariate-logistic regression. Results: Coverage in two hospitals that implemented the free vaccination policy was 30.5% and 25.9%, respectively, which was statistically different to hospitals that did not implement the free policy (7.2% and 8.7%, respectively) (χ2 = 332.56, p < 0.0001). Among vaccinated healthcare workers, 65.5% and 48.6% reported their main reasons for vaccination were a convenient vaccination service and awareness of the free vaccination policy. The reasons for not being vaccinated among the 3389 unvaccinated healthcare workers included: the inconvenient vaccination service (33.8%), believing vaccination was unnecessary (29.7%), concerns about adverse reactions to the vaccine (28.8%), and having to pay for the vaccine (25.6%). Conclusions: Implementing the free vaccination policy, combined with improving the accessibility of the vaccination service, increased seasonal-influenza vaccination-coverage in healthcare workers in Xining. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Measles Immunization Policies and Vaccination Coverage in EU/EEA Countries over the Last Decade
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010086 - 14 Feb 2020
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1354
Abstract
Background: Starting from 2016, a major measles epidemic affected EU/EEA countries, after the measles incidence rate had progressively decreased from 2011 to 2015. Methods: This study describes measles incidences (ECDC reports), the vaccination coverages (VCs) (WHO/UNICEF reports) and the vaccination strategies, whether mandatory [...] Read more.
Background: Starting from 2016, a major measles epidemic affected EU/EEA countries, after the measles incidence rate had progressively decreased from 2011 to 2015. Methods: This study describes measles incidences (ECDC reports), the vaccination coverages (VCs) (WHO/UNICEF reports) and the vaccination strategies, whether mandatory or recommended (ECDC Vaccine Scheduler), in 30 European countries over the last decade. Results: VCs were higher in countries with historically mandatory vaccination. However, in these countries, VCs declined between 2010 and 2018, in two cases to levels below 90% at the second dose. Instead, 9 and 12 countries with recommended vaccination increased their VCs, respectively, for the first and the second dose. Overall, the countries with VC ≥ 95% decreased from 20 to 15 for the first dose and from 10 to 7 for the second dose. This trend led Italy, France and Germany to make vaccination mandatory. In Italy this provision was introduced in 2017, and together with the catch-up campaigns on children between 1 and 15 years at school entry, led immediately to a strong effect: the first dose VC passed from 87% in 2016 to 93% in 2018, and from 82% to 89% for the second dose. Conclusions: Mandatory vaccination is certainly a policy producing positive effects; however, it seems to require additional strategies in order to reach the WHO goal of 95% of VC. Measures such as catch-up action on susceptible populations and communication strategies aimed at increasing awareness and acceptance should be considered. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Evaluation of Immunization Services for Children of Migrant Workers Along Thailand–Myanmar Border: Compliance with Global Vaccine Action Plan (2011–2020)
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010068 - 05 Feb 2020
Viewed by 1043
Abstract
Immunization is a core component of the human right to health. However, accessibility to the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) might be difficult among migrant children. This study aims to assess the vaccination coverage of migrant children under a mobile immunization program, initiated [...] Read more.
Immunization is a core component of the human right to health. However, accessibility to the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) might be difficult among migrant children. This study aims to assess the vaccination coverage of migrant children under a mobile immunization program, initiated by the Thai government in 2014. A cross-sectional, mixed-methods study was conducted in five districts along the Thailand–Myanmar border during July–December 2018. The immunization history during their first year of life was obtained. Focus group discussions were conducted among stakeholders to explore their satisfaction toward the immunization service. Mothers/guardians of 1707 migrant children participated in the survey, with a 71% response rate. The vaccination coverage increased during 2014–2017. The highest vaccination coverage was observed for Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine, with 83.2% coverage in 2017. The vaccination coverage of three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and Hepatitis B vaccine and oral polio vaccine increased from 34.8% in 2014 to 56.3% in 2017. For measles-containing vaccine, the vaccination coverage increased from 32.4% in 2014 to 54.6% in 2017. Overall, all stakeholders were satisfied with the immunization service. Increased workload and communication barriers were the main factors that influenced the satisfaction toward the immunization program. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Determining Factors for Pertussis Vaccination Policy: A Study in Five EU Countries
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010046 - 26 Jan 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1762
Abstract
Pertussis vaccination policy varies across Europe, not only in the type of vaccine—whole cell (wP) vs. acellular (aP1/2/3/5)—but also in the schedule and recommendation for parents. This study aims to investigate the determining factors for the type of vaccine, immunization schedule and maternal [...] Read more.
Pertussis vaccination policy varies across Europe, not only in the type of vaccine—whole cell (wP) vs. acellular (aP1/2/3/5)—but also in the schedule and recommendation for parents. This study aims to investigate the determining factors for the type of vaccine, immunization schedule and maternal immunization recommendation. From March to May 2019, experts in national health agencies and major academic or research institutions from Denmark, France, Poland, Sweden and the UK were invited to a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was performed on the transcripts using a codebook formulated by three coders. Inter-coder agreement was assessed. Fifteen expert interviews were conducted. The identified driving factors for pertussis vaccine policy were classified into three domains: scientific factors, sociological factors, and pragmatic factors. The determining factors for the type of vaccine were prescriber’s preference, concern of adverse events following immunization (AEFI), effectiveness, and consideration of other vaccine components in combined vaccines. The determining factors for infant schedule were immunity response and the potential to improve coverage and timeliness. The determining factors for maternal immunization were infant mortality and public acceptability. To conclude, socio-political and pragmatic factors were, besides scientific factors, important in determining the pertussis vaccine type, schedule of childhood immunization and recommendations for parents. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Uptake and the Willingness to Receive the HPV Vaccination among Female College Students in China: A Multicenter Study
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010031 - 16 Jan 2020
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 1255
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to determine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake and willingness to receive HPV vaccination among female college students, in China, and its associated factors. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of female college students across the eastern, central, and western regions [...] Read more.
Background: This study aimed to determine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake and willingness to receive HPV vaccination among female college students, in China, and its associated factors. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of female college students across the eastern, central, and western regions of China was undertaken between April and September 2019. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to examine factors associated with the HPV vaccine uptake and willingness to receive the HPV vaccine. Results: Among the total 4220 students who participated in this study, 11.0% reported having been vaccinated against HPV. There are direct effects of indicators of higher socioeconomic status, older age (β = 0.084 and p = 0.006), and geographical region (residing in Eastern China, β = 0.033, and p = 0.024) on HPV vaccine uptake. Higher knowledge (β = 0.062 and p < 0.000) and perceived susceptibility (β = 0.043 and p = 0.002) were also predictors of HPV vaccine uptake. Of those who had not received the HPV vaccine, 53.5% expressed a willingness to do so. Likewise, social economic status indicators were associated with the willingness to receive the HPV vaccine. Total knowledge score (β = 0.138 and p < 0.001), both perceived susceptibility (β = 0.092 and p < 0.001) and perceived benefit (β = 0.088 and p < 0.001), and sexual experience (β = 0.041 and p = 0.007) had a positive and significant direct effect on the willingness to receive the HPV vaccine, while perceived barriers (β = −0.071 and p < 0.001) had a negative effect on the willingness to receive the HPV vaccine. Conclusions: Geographical region and socioeconomic disparities in the HPV vaccination uptake rate and willingness to receive the HPV vaccine provide valuable information for public health planning that aims to improve vaccination rates in underserved areas in China. The influence of knowledge and perceptions of HPV vaccination suggests the importance of communication for HPV immunization. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Epidemiology of Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Related Hospitalization Over a 5-Year Period in Italy: Evaluation of Seasonality and Age Distribution Before Vaccine Introduction
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010015 - 04 Jan 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1190
Abstract
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is associated with most of the acute viral respiratory tract infections causing hospitalization with a peak during the first months of life. Many clinical trials of RSV vaccine candidates are being carried out. The aim of this study was [...] Read more.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is associated with most of the acute viral respiratory tract infections causing hospitalization with a peak during the first months of life. Many clinical trials of RSV vaccine candidates are being carried out. The aim of this study was to obtain epidemiologic information to give suggestions on target populations and prevention strategies before the introduction of new vaccines or monoclonal antibodies. We retrospectively evaluated, over a 5-year period (September 2014–August 2019), a population of hospitalized Italian children aged 0–6 years with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of RSV infection. Risk factors, seasonality of RSV infection, distribution according to age, cases of coinfections and reinfections and cases needing Intensive Care Unit were evaluated. Hospitalizations due to RSV were 624 in the period under study. The peak was found between November and April, with 80.4% of cases recorded between December and February. 62.5% of cases were found in children under three months of age and 41% in children under 30 days old. The need for intensive care was associated with younger ages, with 70.9% of cases in children below three months of age. Unless the incoming vaccines demonstrate a strong herd protection effect, preventive strategies should be aimed at newborns or at maternal immunization. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
An Internet-Based Survey of Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Healthcare Workers in China, 2018/2019 Season
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010006 - 26 Dec 2019
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 1259
Abstract
Influenza vaccination coverage was low among healthcare workers (HCWs) in China. In October 2018, the National Health Commission of China began to require all hospitals to provide free influenza vaccination for HCWs to increase vaccine uptake, and no study on vaccine coverage among [...] Read more.
Influenza vaccination coverage was low among healthcare workers (HCWs) in China. In October 2018, the National Health Commission of China began to require all hospitals to provide free influenza vaccination for HCWs to increase vaccine uptake, and no study on vaccine coverage among HCWs at the national level after the announcement of new policy. This evaluation aims to investigate self-reported influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs and factors that may affect vaccine receipt during the 2018/2019 influenza season. We delivered an opt-in internet panel survey among registered HCWs of DXY forum (the biggest online forum for HCWs in China). The survey was self-administered using a standard questionnaire to collect information on demographics, occupational characteristics, policy implementation, influenza vaccination and influence factors. We conducted multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with receipt of influenza vaccine. The response rate of this online survey was 3.6%. The seasonal influenza vaccine coverage reported among HCWs surveyed during the 2018/2019 season was 11.6% (472/4078). Only 19.0% (774/4078) of HCWs surveyed reported free policy in their workplace. Combing free policy and workplace requirement proved to be effective to improve influenza vaccination coverage in HCWs (PR = 6.90, 95% CI: 6.03–7.65). The influenza vaccination coverage among surveyed HCWs in China was low during the 2018/2019 season. To increase future vaccination uptake, we recommend a multi-faceted strategy that include free policy, workplace requirement and promotion, on-site vaccination, and monitoring. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Open AccessArticle
Low Influenza, Pneumococcal and Diphtheria–Tetanus–Poliomyelitis Vaccine Coverage in Patients with Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010003 - 21 Dec 2019
Viewed by 897
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS). Method: A total of 111 patients fulfilling American–European Consensus Group criteria for pSS were interviewed by use of a standardized questionnaire between January 2016 and November 2017 [...] Read more.
Objective: To evaluate vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS). Method: A total of 111 patients fulfilling American–European Consensus Group criteria for pSS were interviewed by use of a standardized questionnaire between January 2016 and November 2017 in two French tertiary referral centers for auto-immune diseases. Results: Updated immunization coverage for influenza was 31.5% (n = 35), pneumococcus was 11.7% (n = 13), and diphtheria–tetanus–poliomyelitis (DTP) was 24.3% (n = 27). The main reasons for non-vaccination were fear of side effects from the influenza vaccine (40.3%) and a lack of proposal for the pneumococcal vaccine (72.3%). In vaccinated patients, vaccination was mainly proposed by general practitioners for the influenza vaccine (42.6%) and rheumatologists for the pneumococcal vaccine (41.2%). Probability of influenza vaccination was associated with age (odds ratio/year (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–1.1; p = 0.016), history of severe infection (OR 15.9, 95% CI 1.35–186; p = 0.028), low EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.96; p = 0.013), and comorbidities (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.22–10.2; p = 0.02). Probability of vaccination against pneumococcus was associated with lung comorbidities (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.11–13.12; p = 0.033) and up-to-date influenza vaccination (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.08–12.8; p = 0.038). Conclusion: Influenza, pneumococcal, and DTP vaccine coverage was low in patients with pSS included in this study. These results underline the relevance of systematically screening vaccine status in pSS patients and educating patients and physicians on the need for vaccination to improve vaccine coverage in this population. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

Open AccessReview
Safety of Co-Administration Versus Separate Administration of the Same Vaccines in Children: A Systematic Literature Review
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010012 - 31 Dec 2019
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1670
Abstract
The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a [...] Read more.
The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessReview
Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in China: A Scoping Review of Chinese Scholarship
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010002 - 20 Dec 2019
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 2461
Abstract
Despite the well-developed Chinese National Immunization Program, vaccine hesitancy in China is rising. As part of the response, Chinese scholars have studied determinants and proposed solutions to vaccination hesitancy. We performed a scoping review of Chinese literature (2007–2019), drawn from four Chinese databases. [...] Read more.
Despite the well-developed Chinese National Immunization Program, vaccine hesitancy in China is rising. As part of the response, Chinese scholars have studied determinants and proposed solutions to vaccination hesitancy. We performed a scoping review of Chinese literature (2007–2019), drawn from four Chinese databases. We mapped relevant information and presented a systemic account of the proposed determinants and responses to vaccine hesitancy in China. We identified 77 relevant studies that reveal four approaches to vaccine hesitancy. Most Chinese studies define vaccine hesitancy as a problem of vaccine safety and vaccine incident response and place accountability on the level of governance, such as regulation deficits and inappropriate crisis management. A first minority of studies tied vaccination hesitancy to unprofessional medical conduct and called for additional resources and enhanced physician qualifications. A second minority of studies positioned vaccination hesitancy as a problem of parental belief and pointed to the role of media, proposing enhanced communication and education. Chinese literature ties vaccine hesitancy primarily to vaccine safety and medical conduct. Compared to international research, parental concerns are underrepresented. The Chinese context of vaccination scandals notably frames the discussion of vaccination hesitancy and potential solutions, which stresses the importance of considering vaccination hesitancy in specific social and political contexts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

Open AccessCommentary
The Vaccine Uptake Continuum: Applying Social Science Theory to Shift Vaccine Hesitancy
Vaccines 2020, 8(1), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8010076 - 07 Feb 2020
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3077
Abstract
Vaccines are the optimal public health strategy to prevent disease, but the growing anti-vaccine movement has focused renewed attention on the need to persuade people to increase vaccine uptake. This commentary draws on social and behavioral science theory and proposes a vaccine uptake [...] Read more.
Vaccines are the optimal public health strategy to prevent disease, but the growing anti-vaccine movement has focused renewed attention on the need to persuade people to increase vaccine uptake. This commentary draws on social and behavioral science theory and proposes a vaccine uptake continuum comprised of five factors: (1) awareness of the health threat; (2) availability of the vaccine; (3) accessibility of the vaccine; (4) affordability of the vaccine; and (5) acceptability of the vaccine to effectively approach this rising challenge. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies Addressing Falling Vaccine Coverage and Vaccine Hesitancy)
Back to TopTop