COVID-19 booster vaccine attitudes and behaviors among university students and staff in the United States: The USC Trojan pandemic research Initiative

Lee, Ryan C.; Hu, Howard; Kawaguchi, Eric S.; Kim, Andre E.; Soto, Daniel W.; Shanker, Kush; Klausner, Jeffrey D.; Orman, Sarah Van; Unger, Jennifer B.

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101866

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in Saudi Arabia (55.3%) (22), Czechia (71.3%) (23), and China (87%) (24). A surprising finding was that this value was also considerably lower than those in the general population in India (59.1%) (25), the Middle East and North Africa Region (60.2%) (26), China (91.1%) (27), Japan (97.8%) (28), university students and staff in Italy (85.7%) (15), and the United States (96.2%) (29). The finding of the present study is of great concern because HCWs have a higher risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population; in Italy, since the beginning of the pandemic as of September 2021, there have been 3,970 deaths among HCWs out of a total of 124,000 (30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Willingness to accept a second COVID-19 vaccination booster dose among healthcare workers in Italy

Polla

Giudice²,

Folcarelli³

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is evolving,the newly emerged Omicron variant being the dominant strain worldwide, and this has raised concerns about vaccine efficacy. The purposes of this survey were to examine the extent to which healthcare workers (HCWs) intend to receive a second booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and the factors that influence their willingness to accept it.MethodsThe study was conducted among HCWs who were randomly selected from four public hospitals in the Campania region, Southern Italy.ResultsA total of 496 HCWs answered the questionnaire (a response rate of 61.2%). Among the respondents, 20.8% indicated a score of 10, using a 10-point Likert-type scale, regarding the usefulness of a second COVID-19 vaccine booster dose. Physicians, HCWs who believed that COVID-19 was a severe disease, and those who have acquired information about the second booster dose from scientific journals were more likely to have this positive attitude. Slightly more than half of HCWs self-reported willingness to receive a second booster dose. Respondents who believe that HCWs are at higher risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2, those who have a higher belief that COVID-19 is a severe disease, and those who have a higher belief that a second booster dose is useful were more willing to receive a second booster dose. The main reasons for those who had a positive intention were to protect their family members and patients, whereas, the main reasons for not getting vaccinated or for uncertainty were that the dose does not offer protection against the emerging variants and the fear of its side effects. HCWs of younger age, physicians, those who have a higher belief that a second booster dose is useful, and those who were willing to receive a second booster dose were more likely to recommend the booster dose to their patients.ConclusionThis study's findings highlight the necessity for designing and implementing educational interventions for improving second booster dose uptake and beliefs among HCWs and their capacity to recommend the vaccine to the patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Willingness to accept a second COVID-19 vaccination booster dose among healthcare workers in Italy

Polla

Giudice²,

Folcarelli³

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is now a reality, and most Americans understand that COVID-19 is here to stay [ 1 ]. As mutations and natural selection continue to occur, new variants emerge and vaccines need to be continuously redeveloped [ 14 ] and adopted by the population [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. In the U.S., the federal government has purchased 66 million doses of bivalent boosters that target BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants [ 108 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surveys in Jordan show that less than 1 in 5 persons would take an annual booster [ 19 ], while about 2 in 3 Canadians [ 20 ] and more than 4 in 5 German-speaking adults would be willing [ 21 ]. Results in the U.S. are mixed, as surveys were conducted across sub-populations with different profiles [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Scoping Review of Three Dimensions for Long-Term COVID-19 Vaccination Models: Hybrid Immunity, Individual Drivers of Vaccinal Choice, and Human Errors

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The virus that causes COVID-19 changes over time, occasionally leading to Variants of Interest (VOIs) and Variants of Concern (VOCs) that can behave differently with respect to detection kits, treatments, or vaccines. For instance, two vaccination doses were 61% effective against the BA.1 predominant variant, but only 24% effective when BA.2 became predominant. While doses still confer protection against severe disease outcomes, the BA.5 variant demonstrates the possibility that individuals who have received a few doses built for previous variants can still be infected with newer variants. As previous vaccines become less effective, new ones will be released to target specific variants and the whole process of vaccinating the population will restart. While previous models have detailed logistical aspects and disease progression, there are three additional key elements to model COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the long term. First, the willingness of the population to participate in regular vaccination campaigns is essential for long-term effective COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Previous research has shown that several categories of variables drive vaccination status: sociodemographic, health-related, psychological, and information-related constructs. However, the inclusion of these categories in future models raises questions about the identification of specific factors (e.g., which sociodemographic aspects?) and their operationalization (e.g., how to initialize agents with a plausible combination of factors?). While previous models separately accounted for natural- and vaccine-induced immunity, the reality is that a significant fraction of individuals will be both vaccinated and infected over the coming years. Modeling the decay in immunity with respect to new VOCs will thus need to account for hybrid immunity. Finally, models rarely assume that individuals make mistakes, even though this over-reliance on perfectly rational individuals can miss essential dynamics. Using the U.S. as a guiding example, our scoping review summarizes these aspects (vaccinal choice, immunity, and errors) through ten recommendations to support the modeling community in developing long-term COVID-19 vaccination models.

show abstract

“…At the same time, even though trust is defined and measured in a variety of different ways, studies conducted across multiple different populations have identified associations between trust in science and intention to get vaccinated or boosted for COVID-19 [8][9][10][11][12], as well as adherence to other measures to mitigate harm from the pandemic (eg, nonpharmaceutical interventions) [13][14][15][16][17]. Thus, even if the exact nature of the relationship is unclear, it is reasonable to speculate that trust in science and scientists is associated with people's behaviors during a public health emergency such as COVID-19.…”

Section: Trust In Science and Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Agley¹,

Xiao²,

Thompson³

et al. 2022

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Trust in science and scientists has received renewed attention because of the “infodemic” occurring alongside COVID-19. A robust evidence basis shows that such trust is associated with belief in misinformation and willingness to engage in public and personal health behaviors. At the same time, trust and the associated construct of credibility are complex meta-cognitive concepts that often are oversimplified in quantitative research. The discussion of research often includes both normative language (what one ought to do based on a study’s findings) and cognitive language (what a study found), but these types of claims are very different, since normative claims make assumptions about people’s interests. Thus, this paper presents a protocol for a large randomized controlled trial to experimentally test whether some of the variability in trust in science and scientists and perceived message credibility is attributable to the use of normative language when sharing study findings in contrast to the use of cognitive language alone. Objective The objective of this trial will be to examine if reading normative and cognitive claims about a scientific study, compared to cognitive claims alone, results in lower trust in science and scientists as well as lower perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Methods We will conduct a randomized controlled trial consisting of 2 parallel groups and a 1:1 allocation ratio. A sample of 1500 adults aged ≥18 years who represent the overall US population distribution by gender, race/ethnicity, and age will randomly be assigned to either an “intervention” arm (normative and cognitive claims) or a control arm (cognitive claims alone). In each arm, participants will view and verify their understanding of an ecologically valid claim or set of claims (ie, from a highly cited, published research study) designed to look like a social media post. Outcomes will be trust in science and scientists, the perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, the perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Analyses will incorporate 9 covariates. Results This study will be conducted without using any external funding mechanisms. Conclusions If there is a measurable effect attributable to the inclusion of normative language when writing about scientific findings, it should generate discussion about how such findings are presented and disseminated. Trial Registration Open Science Framework n7yfc; https://osf.io/n7yfc International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/41747

show abstract

COVID-19 booster vaccine attitudes and behaviors among university students and staff in the United States: The USC Trojan pandemic research Initiative

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Willingness to accept a second COVID-19 vaccination booster dose among healthcare workers in Italy

Willingness to accept a second COVID-19 vaccination booster dose among healthcare workers in Italy

A Scoping Review of Three Dimensions for Long-Term COVID-19 Vaccination Models: Hybrid Immunity, Individual Drivers of Vaccinal Choice, and Human Errors

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About