IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that effective vaccines constitute a central element of successful pandemic control. Although everyone in Germany has had the opportunity to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, some people remain hesitant or refuse to get vaccinated. To address this phenomenon as well as to examine the unvaccinated population more closely, the present study investigates (RQ1) factors explaining the COVID-19 vaccination status (RQ2) trust in different types of COVID-19 vaccines, and (RQ3) people's specific reasons for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19.MethodsWe base our findings on a representative survey that we conducted in Germany in December 2021 with 1,310 respondents.ResultsIn response to the first research question, a logistic regression shows that trust in specific institutions (e.g., medical experts and authorities) is positively related to vaccination status, whereas trust in companies and COVID-19-related social and alternative media consumption decreases the likelihood of being vaccinated. Furthermore (RQ2), while vaccinated people trust mRNA-based vaccines (e.g., BioNTech), most unvaccinated people put greater trust in recently developed protein-based vaccines (e.g., Novavax), albeit on a low level. Finally, our study reveals (RQ3) that the most important reason why people choose not to get vaccinated is that they wish to make their own decisions about their bodies.ConclusionBased on our results, we suggest that a successful vaccination campaign should address COVID-19 risk groups and lower income populations, increase trust in different public institutions and newly developed vaccines in advance, establish a multisectoral approach, and debunk fake news and misinformation. Furthermore, since unvaccinated respondents state that the desire to make their own choices about their body is the main reason why they have not gotten vaccinated against COVID-19, an effective vaccination campaign should emphasize the need for general practitioners who have a closer relationship with their patients who, in turn, trust their doctors.

Alongside its immediate consequences for physical health, the current Coronavirus pandemic and the associated containment measures have led to multiple psychosocial consequences for the population. While virus containment is the main motive of crisis management, there is, so far, little evidence on how crisis management actors consider findings about the psychosocial state of the German population. This paper therefore examines the role of psychosocial consequences within the work of crisis management organizations during the Corona pandemic in Germany. Against the theoretical background of the sensemaking concept, 14 qualitative interviews were conducted with decision-makers from municipal and state administrations, public health departments, aid organizations, and critical infrastructure organizations. Our results indicate that crisis managers perceive aspects related to the psychosocial situation as relevant, but in a very selective way. They use different and often non-scientific sources to acquire knowledge about the psychosocial consequences. In sum, these aspects do not play a major role in decision-making processes. We argue that the perception and processing of psychosocial consequences depend in particular on the organizational context such as goals, plausibility assumptions, identity conceptions, and problem frames. In order to extend theoretical models of psychosocial crisis management, more detailed knowledge of sensemaking processes in crisis management organizations is necessary.

Emergency service workers are exposed to many stressors during their work that can lead to pressure, strain and other negative consequences. If they recover after traumatic events and do not show long-term negative consequences, this is referred to as resilience. Certain individual, institutional, and social resources and strategies are key factors that influence people's ability to cope successfully. However, those specific resources and coping strategies that can enhance resilience have not yet been studied in detail among emergency service workers, even though they are exposed to various impacts on a daily basis. The present study investigated a total of 774 emergency service workers operating in Germany. It used well-established questionnaires designed to investigate resources, coping styles, and resilience, and multiple linear regression analysis was performed on the responses. The results indicate that emergency service workers are exposed to stressors, especially on the institutional level. However, they possess personal, social, and institutional resources and coping strategies that enhance resilience. Personal resources like self-efficacy and ambiguity tolerance prove to be the strongest predictors of emergency service workers’ resilience. Problem-focused coping is found to increase resilience, whereas emotion-oriented coping seems to be related negatively. Measures that increase resilience should be included in education and training, as is discussed in the practical implications. Training materials such as learning games support the development of ambiguity tolerance and self-efficacy of emergency service personnel while stress tests for organizations enhance the operating capabilities of emergency organizations even.