No abstract

Background On 8 th April 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) made the Pfizer-BioNtech (Comirnaty) vaccine the “preferred” vaccine for adults in Australia aged <50 years due to a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca vaccination. We sought to understand whether this impacted COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Method we undertook qualitative interviews from February – April 2021 before and after the program change with 28 adults in Perth, Western Australia. Using our COVID-19 vaccine intentions model, we assessed changes in participants’ COVID-19 vaccine intention before and after the program change. Participants were classified as 1) ‘acceptors’: no concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, access and would accept whatever vaccine is offered, 2) ‘cautious acceptors’: some concerns and would prefer a particular vaccine brand but would accept whatever is offered, 3) ‘Wait awhile’: for more data, easier access, for another vaccine brand, or a greater perceived COVID-19 threat or 4) ‘refuser’: no intention to vaccinate due to concerns about safety and/or efficacy. Results before the change, 7/18 of those aged <50 years were ‘acceptors,’ 10/18 were ‘cautious acceptors’ and 1/18 was ‘wait awhile.’ Overall, 14/18 participants had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention after the change; 4/18 became more concerned. For those aged ≥50 years and before the change, 5/10 were ‘acceptors’ and 5/10 were ‘cautious acceptors.’ After the change, 8/10 still had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention; 2/10 became more cautious. The major concern before the program change was COVID-19 vaccines having different vaccine efficacy; the concern pivoted to safety. Conclusion the majority of participants were ‘cautious acceptors’ who intended on being vaccinated; many had this intention before and after the program change. The Australian government, health care providers and media need to better address COVID-19 vaccine concerns to assist those with COVID-19 vaccine intentions receive a vaccine.

IntroductionAhead of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination programme, the interdisciplinary Coronavax research team developed a multicomponent mixed methods project to support successful roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine in Western Australia. This project seeks to analyse community attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine access and information needs. We also study how government incorporates research findings into the vaccination programme.Methods and analysisThe Coronavax protocol employs an analytical social media study, and a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with purposively selected community groups. Participant groups currently include healthcare workers, aged care workers, first responders, adults aged 65+ years, adults aged 30–64 years, young adults aged 18–29 years, education workers, parents/guardians of infants and young children (<5 years), parents/guardians of children aged 5–18 years with comorbidities and parents/guardians who are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines. The project also includes two studies that track how Australian state and Commonwealth (federal) governments use the study findings. These are functional dialogues (translation and discussion exercises that are recorded and analysed) and evidence mapping of networks within government (which track how study findings are used).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and the University of Western Australia HREC. Study findings will be disseminated by a series of journal articles, reports to funders and stakeholders, and invited and peer-reviewed presentations.

No abstract

Many governments and institutions mandated COVID-19 vaccines. In late 2021, we sought to ascertain the perspectives of staff and students from The University of Western Australia about the State or the University mandating COVID-19 vaccines. The survey captured vaccination status and intentions along with attitudes towards mandates and potential types of exemptions with 2878 valid responses which were quantitatively analysed and 2727 which were qualitatively analysed. The study found generally high levels of vaccination or intent, and strong support for mandates, underpinned by beliefs that vaccination is a moral duty and that mandates make campus feel safer. These sentiments were not more prevalent amongst individuals with comorbidities; often healthy individuals supported mandates to reduce their risk of transmitting disease to vulnerable family members. Individuals with comorbidities were, however, more supportive of excluding the unvaccinated from campus. Most opponents were unvaccinated, and many indicated that mandate policies would backfire, making them less likely to vaccinate. Despite the strong overall support, 41% of respondents did not want to see non-compliant staff or students lose their positions, and only 35% actively sought this. Institutions or governments introducing mandates should emphasise community concerns about catching COVID-19 and becoming sick or transmitting the disease to vulnerable loved ones.