COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in eight European countries: Prevalence, determinants, and heterogeneity

Steinert, Janina; Sternberg, Henrike; Prince, Hannah; Fasolo, Barbara; Galizzi, Matteo M.; Büthe, Tim; Veltri, Giuseppe

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9825

Cited by 108 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This misperception may indicate a false consensus bias: the tendency to assume that others are similar to oneself. Using different data sources, we replicated the finding of an underestimation in vaccine acceptance for different populations and across different time periods ( 11 , 60 ), thus generalizing our findings beyond the local context of Rome.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…As a second comparison, we used the Periscope survey ( 11 ), which contains information about vaccine acceptance and empirical expectations in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden between June 14 and June 25, 2021, a period that overlaps with the first two waves of our survey. Calculating the misperception in empirical expectations for these countries, we find significant misperceptions for all countries (See Fig.…”

Section: Study 1: Diagnosis Of the Vaccination Norm Over Timementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vaccine hesitancy is often ascribed to individual beliefs and preferences, such as trust (in the vaccine or provider) and complacency (perceived need for a vaccine) ( 9 ). Hence, with the start of COVID-19 vaccination programs, campaigns in most countries informed about safety and effectiveness or the possibility to return to normal life ( 10 , 11 ), provided nudges and reminders to help people follow through on making their appointments ( 12 , 13 ), used monetary incentives to get vaccinated ( 14 ) and implemented COVID-19 health certificates that restricted access to public spaces ( 15 , 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccine hesitancy is one of the main threats to global health, as became clear once more during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vaccination campaigns could benefit from appeals to social norms to promote vaccination, but without awareness of the social norm in place any intervention relying on social norms may backfire. We present a two-step approach of social norm diagnosis and intervention that identifies both whether a vaccination norm exists or develops over time and corrects misperceptions. In two studies (N = 887 and N = 412) conducted in Rome, Italy from June to August 2021 (during the first Covid-19 vaccination campaign), we show that vaccine hesitant people strongly underestimated vaccine acceptance rates for Covid-19 despite increases in region-wide vaccination rates. This suggests a false consensus bias on the social norm of vaccination. We presented a subgroup of vaccine hesitant people with the accurate vaccine acceptance rates (both planned uptake and vaccine approval) and tested if this social information would lower their vaccine hesitancy. We do not find clear effects, most likely because of the introduction of the Covid-19 health certificate (the ‘green pass’) that was implemented during our data collection. The green pass reduced both misperceptions in the social norm and vaccine hesitancy, thus undermining our treatment effect. We conclude that to alleviate misperceptions on the social norm of vaccination in early stages of the vaccination campaign governments and media should report not just the current vaccination rate, but also about vaccination intentions and approval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Study 1: Diagnosis Of the Vaccination Norm Over Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Higher levels of vaccination hesitancy in Eastern European countries, particularly in Russia and Bulgaria may be particularly relevant. [24][25][26][27] Steinert et al 28 found no adequate response to messages about the benefits of vaccination in several countries including Bulgaria and Poland, which was not the case in Germany and the UK.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

East-West mortality disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic widen the historical longevity divide in Europe: an international comparative study

Shkolnikov,

Timonin,

Jdanov

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over half a century, life expectancy in Eastern European (former communist) countries has been appreciably lower than in Western Europe, although this difference has been narrowing since 2000. We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these differences. The pandemic reversed the recent convergence and widened the gap to levels observed more than two decades ago (7.9 years for males and 4.9 for females in 2021). Moreover, the trajectory of excess mortality in the pandemic differed between East and West, with the first major peaks in Eastern Europe occurring on average six months after the first peaks seen in Western countries. Despite this, the East suffered greater losses in life expectancy, especially in 2021. This was due to larger relative mortality increases in the East rather than greater frailty of the Eastern European populations as indexed by higher pre-pandemic mortality levels. East-West differences in life expectancy losses in 2021 were substantially explained by COVID-19 vaccination, which together with trust in government accounted for half the gap. We conclude that the East-West differences in life expectancy losses are associated with structural and psychosocial traits that have their roots in the communist era. This includes differences in the connectivity of populations (which drives the differences in timing), as well as profound contrasts in levels of trust in science, authorities, and their capacity to enforce lockdowns and other regulatory measures (driving the huge differences in excess mortality from autumn 2020 onwards).

show abstract

“…The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaigns in Europe were launched at the beginning of 2021 and were met with varying levels of vaccine hesitancy. [1][2][3] Nevertheless, by the end of the year, 69% of the population in the European Economy Area (EEA) completed the initial vaccination protocol consisting of two doses of BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer, mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), or a single dose of AD26.COV2.S (Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson). 4 Although the use of particular vaccines in the EEA varied, while the vaccination protocols (e.g., regarding a gap between doses) were subject to temporal changes depending on vaccine availability in selected countries, the BNT162b2 was the most often administrated product in the EEA countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID‐19 vaccinations and rates of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in Europe during SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron wave in the first quarter of 2022

Rzymski

Kasianchuk

Sikora

et al. 2022

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vaccination campaigns brought hope to minimizing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) burden. However, the emergence of novel, highly transmissible Omicron lineage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and the waning of neutralizing antibodies a few months after vaccination has brought concerns over the vaccine efficacy. The present work analyzed the relationships between COVID‐19 vaccine coverage (completion of primary course and booster dose intake) in the European Economic Area and rates of infection, hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care units (ICU), and deaths during the Omicron wave in the first quarter of 2022 (January–April). As demonstrated, infection rates were not correlated to vaccine coverage in any considered month. For January and February, the rates of hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death due to COVID‐19 were strongly negatively correlated ( r =− 0.54 to −0.82) with the percentage of individuals who completed initial vaccination protocol and the percentage of those who received a booster dose. However, in March and April, the percentage of the population with primary vaccination course correlated negatively only with ICU admissions ( r = −0.77 and −0.46, respectively). The uptake of boosters in March still remained in significant negative correlation with hospitalizations ( r = −0.45), ICU admissions ( r = −0.70) and deaths due to COVID‐19 ( r = −0.37), although in April these relationships were no longer observed. The percentage of individuals with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection did not correlate with the pandemic indices for any considered month. The study indicates that COVID‐19 vaccination, including booster administration, was beneficial in decreasing the overwhelming of healthcare systems during the Omicron wave, but novel vaccine strategies may be required in the long term to enhance the effectiveness and durability of vaccine‐induced protection during future waves of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections.

show abstract

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in eight European countries: Prevalence, determinants, and heterogeneity

Cited by 108 publications

References 70 publications

Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination

Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination

East-West mortality disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic widen the historical longevity divide in Europe: an international comparative study

COVID‐19 vaccinations and rates of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in Europe during SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron wave in the first quarter of 2022

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About