No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Attitudes to COVID-19 Vaccines Among Australians During the Delta Variant Wave: A Qualitative Interview Study
Abstract
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 globally, a range of vaccines has been developed and delivered to reduce viral transmission and prevent COVID cases. This article reports findings from a qualitative research project involving telephone interviews with a diverse group of 40 adult Australians about their experiences of the COVID crisis. Interviews were conducted in late 2021 when Australians were dealing with the Delta variant outbreak and following a major effort on the part of government authorities to improve COVID-19 vaccination supplies and take-up. Responses to a question about COVID vaccines revealed that attitudes to and acceptance of COVID vaccines among this group were overwhelmingly positive. All participants had received at least one vaccine dose and the majority expressed views in support of mass vaccination against COVID. People who were hesitant or cautious about accepting COVID vaccination referred to the vaccines’ novelty and potential side effects. While many people were aware of debates about vaccine safety in the news media, trust in science and medical advice about COVID vaccines was strong. Participants wanted to protect themselves and others by accepting the recommended doses. Participants’ locale was a major factor in shaping experiences and stances on vaccines. The setting of government targets and mandates for vaccination was a key motivating factor. The goal of ‘getting back to normal’ was expressed as another reason for accepting vaccination, particularly for those living in areas that had been badly affected by high COVID cases and prolonged lockdowns.
... Previous findings from the 'Australians' Experiences of COVID-19' project found that in 2021 Australians responded very positively to their governments' campaigns to offer the first two doses of COVID-19 vaccines once difficulties with acquisition were resolved. Double vaccination was advertised as a 'way out of the pandemic' once enough people had received these doses (Lupton, 2022b(Lupton, , 2023a. Since 2022, however, vaccination rates have dropped precipitously. ...
... Articles from the Stage 1 interviews address topics such as how Australians first learnt about COVID-19 (Lupton & Lewis, 2021), how they conceptualised risk (Lupton & Lewis, 2022b), coped with chronic health conditions (Lupton & Lewis, 2022c) or pre-existing mental illness (Lupton & Lewis, 2022a) and more generally what life was like during the early months of the pandemic (Lupton & Lewis, 2023). Analysis of the Stage 2 interviews published thus far discuss participants' views and experiences of the first COVID-19 vaccines in relation to their understandings of risk and immunity (Lupton, 2022b(Lupton, , 2023a and their attitudes and experiences related to the internal border closures that occurred during 2020 and 2021 as COVID-19 control measures (Butler & Lupton, 2023). ...
... Only a minority of the respondents definitely planned a further vaccination in the next 12 months. These findings from Stage 4 contrast strongly with the attitudes and practices expressed by Australians who were interviewed in 2021 for Stage 2 of the project, in which there were high levels of appreciation of interest in and willingness to receive the two doses made available that year (Lupton, 2022b(Lupton, , 2023a. ...
The national online survey findings reported in this report are from the most recent stage of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project. Conducted in mid-September 2023, this representative survey investigates 1,000 Australians’ experiences of COVID-19 and preventive practices such as vaccination and face mask wearing, their perceptions of COVID-19 risk, who they think are the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information and their views on the federal and their state/territory governments’ current management of the pandemic. The survey results show that the pandemic continues to badly affect Australians in terms of accumulated infections and prevalence of long COVID. Yet respondents were equivocal about the extent to which COVID-19 is a continuing risk to Australians. For the most part they were not strongly supportive of continued preventive actions against infection such as face mask wearing and vaccination. They did not hold high trust in any COVID-19 information source, including medical experts and scientists. Respondents were divided about how well their governments were managing the pandemic.
... The first theme confirmed that hesitation about COVID-19 vaccination has various roots, spanning from health denialism through the fear of side effects to a libertarian outlook [27]. There is a growing corpus of scientific literature on denialism and vaccine hesitancy; however, more authors are interested in the determinants of refusal or hesitation to get vaccinated than in the motivation of those who have accepted vaccination [27][28][29][30][31][32]. Our study showed that apart from those who were simply afraid of COVID-19 infection and its consequences, several interviewees treated vaccination as their obligation. ...
... The attitudes associated with health denialism, e.g., questioning the existence or severity of the pandemic or refusing to get vaccinated, were frequently accompanied by a lack of trust in modern democratic institutions (the media, experts, and the government). This observation has been shared by other authors who have studied the adherence to preventive measures during the pandemic [31]. ...
Science denialism is characterized by the refusal to accept existing consensus and available evidence. Typical strategies denialists employ include spreading conspiracies, selective use of information, relying on fake experts, or general fallacies in logic. A flood of misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, it was a subject of many denialistic opinions, from denying the existence of the epidemic challenge to claims that questioned the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. This study’s main aim was to assess the manifestations of denialism in attitudes toward the preventive measures recommended during the pandemic, with a special focus on vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted with fifty representatives of the general population, demonstrating diversified opinions about COVID-19 vaccines and other preventive behaviors. The interviews were performed face to face in participants’ houses or at other places they identified as convenient. Some of the interviewees preferred to do the interview via teleconference. The interviews were carried out from November 2022 to March 2023. The interviewees were recruited initially by convenience, and in further stages, the snowball technique was used. The interviewees were residents of four main administrative districts in Poland. Out of 50 participants, 26 were males, 29 were between 18–40, 16 were inhabitants of rural areas, and 28 had a university level of education. The interviews were based on a semi-structured guide that addressed, in addition to views about the origin of the new coronavirus, respondents’ attitudes toward vaccination and sanitary recommendation, the health status of interviewees, their use of healthcare services, and their health behaviors. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed with MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2022 software (Release 22.7.0). Thematic analysis (TA) was applied to the content generated from the interviews. Based on the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, the participants were divided into three groups: unvaccinated, hesitant, and vaccinated (18, 4, and 28 interviewees, respectively). The main themes were established based on the TA of the interviews: attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, perception of sources of information, and the origin of the new coronavirus. The first theme decidedly drew the greatest attention of the interviewees. There was also a clear relationship between vaccination status and the presence of denialist thinking among interviewees. Interestingly, the role of experts as a key source of information about the pandemic was underlined by study participants. However, the criteria for being an expert differed. The subject of the origin of a new coronavirus was not interesting to interviewees. The analysis of the adherence to preventive measures revealed an interplay of diversified attitudes and motivations. Individuals presenting denialist views most frequently abstained from COVID-19 vaccination. However, such views were also present among those who hesitated or even among those who had been vaccinated. Furthermore, denialism was only one of the determinants of adherence to preventive measures.
... COVID-19 vaccines were central to the government's strategy to mitigate the spread and severity of the virus (Edwards et al. 2022), but vaccination initiatives have not always been adopted by the public. In Australia, public understandings of COVID-19 vaccination vary and have been associated with (dis)trust towards manufacturers, side effects, and perceived risks of the virus (Edwards et al. 2021;Enticott et al. 2022;Lupton 2023). ...
Despite a disproportionate risk of harm from contracting COVID‐19, pregnant women in Australia are reluctant to vaccinate. Drawing from social representations theory, this study investigated lay knowledge associated with women, pregnancy and COVID‐19 vaccination towards the end of the pandemic. Women in regional New South Wales (N = 103; Mage = 39.76) completed an online survey comprising risk/benefit scales and a word association task. Results revealed that pregnant women and women considering pregnancy perceived ‘pregnant women’ as being at high risk from the COVID‐19 virus and AstraZeneca vaccine. Regardless of pregnancy status, patterns in women's perceived risk of the virus and vaccines differed by vaccination status and reasoning. Risk and pregnancy issues frequently co‐occurred in women's associations. However, the meaning of these associations varied in relation to women's vaccination experiences. Conceptualised as ‘thema’ risk/safety was central to a social representational field elaborated among women. Aspects of the representational field were elicited depending on self/other relations and diverging emancipated and polemic representations in response to institutional messaging.
... Previous publications from this project have addressed how participants first learnt about the pandemic and responded to risk Lewis, 2022b, 2023), how people living with pre-existing health conditions coped in the early months Lewis, 2022a, 2022c), responses to the 2021 vaccine rollout (Lupton, 2022(Lupton, , 2023, attitudes to the internal border closures implemented in 2020 and 2021 (Butler & Lupton, 2024) and how social imaginaries of the post-pandemic future changed across the first three years of the pandemic (Lupton, 2024b). In this article, we focus on the Stage 3 interviews, which included reflections from participants about their perceptions of risk and the temporality of the crisis during almost 3 years of the pandemic that had elapsed by this time. ...
Since the advent of the COVID‐19 pandemic, several ways of understanding time have emerged: what we may call ‘COVID time’. Based on 40 qualitative online interviews in 2022 with Australians living across the continent, this article examines how people situated themselves and COVID‐19 in historical time. It further explores how material aspects, place and space (or “pandemic materialities”) factored into lived experiences and temporal imaginaries. We focus on how time‐related concepts such as synchronisation and the definition of crises and events are interrelated in the participants’ understandings of COVID as either over or a continuing crisis. The sociomaterial dimensions that served to alert people to risk and encourage them to engage in preventive action are identified as ways in which COVID time was experienced, remembered, understood and imagined. While some respondents claimed that the present moment was ‘post‐COVID’, for others, the pandemic was far from over in 2022 and indeed stretched into the future. We use a sociomaterial lens to show how respondents portray the ‘temporal technologies’ and ‘objectifications’ of the event of COVID‐19—the tangible materialisations of its temporal status as either relegated to the past or continuing as a mode of present and future crisis.
Artykuł prezentuje wyniki badania jakościowego dotyczącego powiązań pomiędzy postawami negacjonistycznymi a zaufaniem do instytucji ochrony zdrowia. 13 pogłębionych wywiadów indywidualnych z osobami prezentującymi postawy negacjonistyczne zostało poddanych jakościowej analizie treści z wykorzystaniem programu MaxQda. W wyniku analizy uzyskano podział narracji występujących w wywiadach na podgrupy: sceptyczne zagubione, sceptyczne zdrworozsądkowe, sceptyzczne indywidualistyczne i negacjonistyczne. Występujące w wypowiedziach pokazują istnienie relacji pomiędzy poglądami negacjonistycznymi, zaufaniem do instytucji medycznych i ich przedstawicieli oraz procesami kulturowymi charakterystycznymi dla okresu nowoczesności refleksyjnej.
Deborah Lupton is a renowned academic whose research has made significant contributions to the field of digital sociology and the sociocultural dimensions of medicine and public health. In an interview with Reciis, Lupton discusses one of the main contemporary challenges - misinformation and fake news - through the lens of digital sociology and addresses the sociocultural perspectives of risk based on the release of the third edition of her book Risk. In this edition, she includes a new chapter on the issues related to risk and the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. With comments on the Australian and Brazilian scenarios, Lupton delves into the issues of anti-science, denialism, and the role played by populist governments in combating the disease. Finally, she explores the potential of creative methods in qualitative studies, especially those that seek to understand people's rationalities, logics, and feelings.
Introduction
Despite the availability, safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, Poland remains one of the six countries of the European Union with the lowest cumulative uptake of the vaccine's primary course in the general population. This study examined willingness to vaccinate and the associated factors in samples of unvaccinated and vaccinated adults between March 2021 and April 2022.
Methods
Data were collected using OBSER-CO, a nationwide, repeated cross-sectional study, conducted at four different time points (rounds). Data on willingness to vaccinate among the unvaccinated (at all rounds) and willingness to receive another dose in the vaccinated (at 2 rounds-after booster introduction), reasons for reluctance, sociodemographic, health, and behavioral factors were collected using a uniform questionnaire via computer-assisted telephone interviewing. In each round, more than 20,000 respondents were interviewed. To assess associations between factors and willingness to vaccinate, separate multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for each factor at each round and adjusted for confounders.
Results
Between rounds 1 and 4 (March 2021–April 2022), in the unvaccinated, willingness to vaccinate declined from 73 to 12%, whereas in the vaccinated, willingness to receive another dose declined from 90 to 53%. The highest magnitude of decline between subsequent rounds occurred during the Omicron wave. Overall, concerns about side effects, effectiveness, and vaccine adverse effects were common but decreased over time. Age, gender, employment, place of residence, COVID-19 diagnosis or exposure, hospitalization, and participation in social activities were among the factors associated with willingness. However, associations changed over rounds highlighting the influence of different pandemic waves and variants.
Conclusion
We observed a declining and multifactorial willingness to vaccinate in Poland, with vaccine attitudes dynamically changing across subsequent rounds. To address vaccine concerns, sustained health communication about COVID-19 vaccines is essential, especially after the emergence of new variants.
The Australian Commonwealth government has four health-related responsibilities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: to provide national leadership; to manage external borders; to protect residents of residential aged care facilities; and to approve, procure and roll-out tests and vaccines. State governments are responsible for determining what public health measures are appropriate and implementing them—including managing the border quarantine arrangements and the testing, tracing, and isolation regime—and managing the hospital response. This paper analyses the national government’s response to the pandemic and discusses why it has attracted a thesaurus of negative adjectives.
This study aimed to explore the association between the GDP of various countries and the progress of COVID-19 vaccinations; to explore how the global pattern holds in the continents, and investigate the spatial distribution pattern of COVID-19 vaccination progress for all countries. We have used consolidated data on COVID-19 vaccination and GDP from Our World in Data, an open-access data source. Data analysis and visualization were performed in R-Studio. There was a strong linear association between per capita income and the proportion of people vaccinated in countries with populations of one million or more. GDP per capita accounts for a 50% variation in the vaccination rate across the nations. Our assessments revealed that the global pattern holds in every continent. Rich European and North-American countries are most protected against COVID-19. Less developed African countries barely initiated a vaccination program. There is a significant disparity among Asian countries. The security of wealthier nations (vaccinated their citizens) cannot be guaranteed unless adequate vaccination covers the less affluent countries. Therefore, the global
community should undertake initiatives to speed up the COVID-19 vaccination program in all
countries of the world, irrespective of their wealth.
Vaccine hesitancy is a prevalent and ongoing issue. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional attention has been brought to the topic of vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a threat to the population’s health globally. This article aims to acquire insights from previous literature to determine what works to increase vaccine uptake and how we can apply this knowledge to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Research has focused chiefly on childhood vaccination and the hesitancy of caregivers. After conducting an extensive literature review, we have created a conceptual model of indicators that influence vaccine uptake for health providers and caregivers, which can also be used for vaccine recipients. Overall, the reasons for vaccine hesitancy are complex; therefore, a multifaceted approach is needed to address it. Understanding the factors that affect vaccine hesitancy will aid in addressing hesitancy and, in turn, lead to an increase in vaccine uptake.
Vaccine uptake in younger Australian women living in rural and regional communities is poorly understood. This research explored factors affecting their decision making in the context of social determinants of health. A mixed methods design applying an explanatory sequential approach commenced with an online questionnaire followed by in-depth interviews with a sample of the same participants. The majority (56%) of participants indicated a positive intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19, but a substantially high proportion (44%) were uncertain or had no intention to be vaccinated. Significant factors affecting vaccine uptake included inadequate and sometimes misleading information leading to poor perceptions of vaccine safety. The personal benefits of vaccination—such as reduced social restrictions and increased mobility—were perceived more positively than health benefits. Additionally, access issues created a structural barrier affecting uptake among those with positive or uncertain vaccination intentions. Understanding factors affecting vaccine uptake allows for more targeted, equitable and effective vaccination campaigns, essential given the importance of widespread COVID-19 vaccination coverage for public health. The population insights emerging from the study hold lessons and relevance for rural and female populations globally.
Background
On 8th 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.
Objective: Tailored communication is necessary to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake. We aimed to understand the information needs, perceived benefits and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of people prioritised, but hesitant to receive the vaccine.
Method: In this qualitative study in Victoria, Australia (February-May 2021), we purposively sampled hesitant adults who were health or aged/disability care workers (n=20), or adults aged 18-69 with comorbidities or aged ≥70 years (‘prioritised adults’; n=19). We thematically analysed interviews inductively, then deductively organised themes within the World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of vaccination model. Two stakeholder workshops (n=12) explored understanding and preferences for communicating risks and benefits. We subsequently formed communication recommendations.
Results: Prioritised adults and health and aged care workers had short- and long-term safety concerns specific to personal circumstances, and felt like “guinea pigs”. They saw vaccination as beneficial for individual and community protection and travel. Some health and aged care workers felt insufficiently informed to recommend vaccines, or viewed this as outside their scope of practice. Workshop participants requested interactive materials and transparency from spokespeople about uncertainty.
Conclusions and public health implications: Eleven recommendations address communication content, delivery and context to increase uptake and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.
The COVID-19 vaccine rollout is crucial to lifting community and economic restrictions. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess: (a) COVID-19 vaccine uptake and associated factors; (b) COVID-19 vaccine intentions and associated factors; (c) community support for COVID-19 vaccination strategies and associated factors. The survey was conducted between May and July 2021 in Australia. Of 3003 participants, 30% reported they were already vaccinated and 39% indicated they would get vaccinated. Low socioeconomic and education levels, non-English speaking backgrounds and being parents were associated with decreased vaccine willingness and/or vaccination rates. High levels of support for vaccination strategies were demonstrated with mandatory vaccination being less preferable. Respondents from non-English speaking backgrounds were more likely to support a mandatory vaccination policy. Respondents with the highest socioeconomic level were more likely to support vaccination requirements for international travel, visiting nursing homes and working in healthcare settings. Respondents who were aged ≥70 years were more likely to support all proposed vaccination strategies. Targeted campaigns should be implemented for parents and those who live in socioeconomic disadvantaged areas and have lower educational attainment. Concise and clear vaccine information should be provided in lay and multiple languages to improve vaccine confidence. Vaccine enforcement policies should be considered and implemented with caution.
Background: Vaccines have been contributing to eradicate or drastically reduce the incidence of common diseases. Simultaneously, vaccine hesitancy is considered among the top ten global health threats. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a tremendous impact on health, economics, and society worldwide, while also reinforcing faulty beliefs about the necessity of vaccine programs as a whole. This study aims to synthesise evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine hesitancy.
Methods: A scoping review of literature between 1 January 2020 and 1 August 2021 was performed.
Results: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance decreased from more than 70 to <50% in 8 months starting from January 2020. Healthcare professionals demonstrate higher rates of vaccine receptivity than the public, which was more influenced by (social) media. The circulation of misinformation was associated with increased fear of side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines. Regarding other vaccines coverage, parents' intentions to vaccinate their children against influenza increased 15.8% during the COVID-19 pandemic so far. Nonetheless, the number of vaccines administered decreased, influenced by factors like fear of being exposed to the virus at healthcare facilities and restrictions.
Conclusions: Several efforts should be undertaken to improve vaccine acceptance and coverage now and beyond the pandemic to optimal population protection.
As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in 2020, Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) entered the public spotlight like never before. Amidst this increased visibility, the role is deeply contested. Much of the disagreement concerns whether CMOs should act independently of the government: while some argue CMOs should act as independent voices who work to shape government policy to protect public health, others stress that CMOs are civil servants whose job is to support the government. The scope and diversity of debates about the CMO role can be explained by its inherently contradictory nature, which requires incumbents to balance their commitments as physicians with their mandates as civil servants who advise and speak on the government’s behalf. The long-haul COVID-19 pandemic has further tested the CMO role and has shone light on its varying remits and expectations across different jurisdictions, institutions and contexts. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that calls to amend the CMO role have emerged in some jurisdictions during the pandemic. However, any discussions about changing the CMO role need a stronger understanding of how different institutional and individual approaches impact what incumbents feel able to do, say and achieve. Based on an ongoing comparative analysis of the position across five countries with Westminster-style political systems, we provide an overview of the CMO role, explain its prominence in a pandemic, examine some debates surrounding the role and discuss a few unanswered empirical questions before describing our ongoing study in greater detail.
Background
High levels of vaccination coverage in populations will be required even with vaccines that have high levels of effectiveness to prevent and stop outbreaks of coronavirus. The World Health Organisation has suggested that governments take a proactive response to vaccine hesitancy ‘hotspots’ based on social and behavioural insights.
Methods
Representative longitudinal online survey of over 3000 adults from Australia that examines the demographic, attitudinal, political and social attitudes and COVID-19 health behavior correlates of vaccine hesitance and resistance to a COVID-19 vaccine.
Results
Overall, 59% would definitely get the vaccine, 29% had low levels of hesitancy, 7% had high levels of hesitancy and 6% were resistant. Females, those living in disadvantaged areas, those who reported that risks of COVID-19 was overstated, those who had more populist views and higher levels of religiosity were more likely to be hesitant or resistant while those who had higher levels of household income, those who had higher levels of social distancing, who downloaded the COVID-Safe App, who had more confidence in their state or territory government or confidence in their hospitals, or were more supportive of migration were more likely to intend to get vaccinated.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy, which accounts for a significant proportion of the population can be addressed by public health messaging but for a significant minority of the population with strongly held beliefs, alternative policy measures may well be needed to achieve sufficient vaccination coverage to end the pandemic.
Utility of vaccine campaigns to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is not merely dependent on vaccine efficacy and safety. Vaccine acceptance among the general public and healthcare workers appears to have a decisive role in the successful control of the pandemic. The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date assessment of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates worldwide. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed English survey literature indexed in PubMed was done on December 25, 2020. Results from 31 peer-reviewed published studies met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis for the final COVID-19 vaccine acceptance estimates. Survey studies on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found from 33 different countries. Among adults representing the general public, the highest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Ecuador (97.0%), Malaysia (94.3%), Indonesia (93.3%) and China (91.3%). However, the lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Kuwait (23.6%), Jordan (28.4%), Italy (53.7), Russia (54.9%), Poland (56.3%), US (56.9%), and France (58.9%). Only eight surveys among healthcare workers (doctors and nurses) were found, with vaccine acceptance rates ranging from 27.7% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 78.1% in Israel. In the majority of survey studies among the general public stratified per country (29/47, 62%), the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination showed a level of ≥ 70%. Low rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported in the Middle East, Russia, Africa and several European countries. This could represent a major problem in the global efforts to control the current COVID-19 pandemic. More studies are recommended to address the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Such studies are particularly needed in the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle and South America. Addressing the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in various countries is recommended as an initial step for building trust in COVID-19 vaccination efforts.
The emergence of COVID-19, caused by novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, became a pandemic in just 10 weeks. Without effective medications or vaccines available, authorities turned toward mitigation measures such as use of face masks, school’s closings, shelter-in-place, telework and social distancing. People found refuge on the internet and social media apps; however, there was a proliferation of instant messaging containing hoaxed, deliberate misleading information: fake news messaging (FNM). The aim of this study was to assess FNM through content analysis and to discriminate them in a proposed taxonomy structure. A sample of convenience of messages, memes, tweets or cartoons in several languages was selected from the most popular social media outlets, i.e. Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter etc. More than 300 FNM were identified. Descriptive statistics were used for highlighting potential relationships between variables. Content analysis determined that FNM could be divided into Health- and non-health-related types. There are several sub-types considering, but not limited to, religious beliefs, politics, economy, nutrition, behaviors, prevention of the infection, the origin of the disease and conspiracy theories. The parallel FNM pandemic affected the response from an already debilitated public health system through the confusion created in the community and the erosion in the credibility of genuine media. Public health practitioners had to face people’s unpredictable behaviors, panic, tensions with the communities and, in some cases, a hostile climate toward frontline workers. Public health practitioners must adjust ongoing and future health promotion and education interventions including plans to neutralize fake news messages.
Using an online panel, we surveyed a representative sample of 500 each in Australia and New Zealand during July 2020, in the middle of the Covid‐19 pandemic. We find trust in government has increased dramatically, with around 80% of respondents agreeing government was generally trustworthy. Around three quarters agreed management of the pandemic had increased their trust in government. Over 85% of respondents have confidence that public health scientists work in the public interest. Testing four hypotheses, we find that income and education predict trust in government and confidence in public health scientists, as does voting for the political party in government. Trust in government and confidence in public health scientists strongly predict Covid‐19 phone application use, largely through convincing people the App is beneficial. Trust in government then is both an outcome and antecedent of government effectiveness. Building trust is important for governments implementing difficult policy responses during a crisis.
The rise of the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the incongruity of individualization ideologies that position individuals at the centre of health care, by contributing, making informed decisions and exercising choice regarding their health options and lifestyle considerations. When confronted with a global health threat, government across the world, have understood that the rhetoric of individualization, personal responsibility and personal choice would only led to disastrous national health consequences. In other words, individual choice offers a poor criterion to guide the health and wellbeing of a population. This reality has forced many advanced economies around the world to suspend their pledges to 'small government', individual responsibility and individual freedom, opting instead for a more rebalanced approach to economic and health outcomes with an increasing role for institutions and mutualization. For many marginalized communities, individualization ideologies and personalization approaches have never worked. On the contrary, they have exacerbated social and health inequalities by benefiting affluent individuals who possess the educational, cultural and economic resources required to exercise 'responsibility', avert risks and adopt health protecting behaviours. The individualization of the management of risk has also further stigmatized the poor by shifting the blame for poor health outcomes from government to individuals. This paper will explore how the COVID-19 pandemic exposes the cracks of neoliberal rhetoric on personalization and opens new opportunities to approach the health of a nation as socially, economically and politically determined requiring 'upstream' interventions on key areas of health including housing, employment, education and access to health care.
As countries continue the third year of the pandemic, we believe that there has been unfair attention to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, while tacitly ignoring serious challenges with vaccine uptake, without which vaccination may not be effective against the spread of COVID-19. While several studies have been published on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, there remains a need to conduct a comprehensive global analysis of vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a scoping review of 60 studies published globally on vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. We conducted a qualitative analysis to identify motivators and barriers to vaccination across several cultural and demographic contexts. We found the following factors to be relevant in any discussion about addressing or minimizing vaccine hesitancy: risk perceptions, trust in health care systems, solidarity, previous experiences with vaccines, misinformation, concerns about vaccine side effects and political ideology. We combine our insights from this comprehensive review of global literature to offer an important and practical discussion about two strategies that have been used to improve vaccine uptake: (i) communication and education and (ii) vaccine rollout and logistics.
Go beyond the attitudes of individuals and focus more on what governments must do to build people’s trust and ensure easy access to vaccines for all. Go beyond the attitudes of individuals and focus more on what governments must do to build people’s trust and ensure easy access to vaccines for all.
Examine the factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics, major epidemics and global outbreaks. A systematic review and thematic analysis of 28 studies on the Influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and the global spread of Ebola Virus Disease. We found seven major factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance: demographic factors influencing vaccination (ethnicity, age, sex, pregnancy, education, and employment), accessibility and cost, personal responsibility and risk perceptions, precautionary measures taken based on the decision to vaccinate, trust in health authorities and vaccines, the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine, and lack of information or vaccine misinformation. An understanding of participant experiences and perspectives toward vaccines from previous pandemics will greatly inform the development of strategies to address the present situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the impact vaccine hesitancy might have for the introduction and effectiveness of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, we believe that skepticism toward vaccines can still exist when there are no vaccines available, which is contrary to contemporary conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend conducting further research assessing the relationship between the accessibility and cost of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy.
Using an online panel, we surveyed a representative sample of 500 each in Australia and New Zealand during July 2020, in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic. We find trust in government has increased dramatically, with around 80% of respondents agreeing government was generally trustworthy. Around three quarters agreed management of the pandemic had increased their trust in government. Over 85% of respondents have confidence that public health scientists work in the public interest. Testing four hypotheses, we find that income and education predict trust in government and confidence in public health scientists, as does voting for the political party in government. Trust in government, and confidence in public health scientists, strongly predict Covid-19 phone application use, largely through convincing people the App is beneficial. Trust in government then is both an outcome and antecedent of government effectiveness. Building trust is important for governments implementing difficult policy responses during a crisis.
The idea of themes is pervasive in everyday life. Consider, for example, shelves in a library (fiction, politics, poetry), sections in a supermarket (toilet paper, confectionary), or stages of a story (flirting on tinder, first date, falling in love). Thematic analysis is a family of qualitative social research methods that formalize, to varying degrees, the process of developing themes. Definitions are difficult and depend on the scale of researchers’ interest. One attempt is that a theme “represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82, emphasis in original). This entry further explores thematic analysis through examples and by looking at various types of data used with thematic analysis, how to carry out such an analysis, how researchers and coders can define themes, and how to determine when a thematic analysis has been successfully conducted.
We need new ways of making the everyday world visible through disruptive empirical methodologies that privilege social justice and utopian acts of critical imagination.
Conceptualising and managing COVID risk: the six phases in Australia
- D Lupton
Lupton, D. (2021) Conceptualising and managing COVID
risk: the six phases in Australia. Medium. https://deborahalupton.medium.com/conceptualising-and-managing-covid-19-risk-the-six-phases-in-australia-6bb5ba8b8d5b.Last
accessed 1 December 2022.
Applied interpretive approaches
- S Thorne
Thorne, S. (2014) Applied interpretive approaches. In Leavy,
P. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 99-115.
reopening-to-tourists-and-other-international-travellers-to-secure-our-economic-recovery.aspx#:~:-text=Since%20the%20Morrison%20Government%20 commenced,loved%20ones%2C%20work%20or%20 study
- K Andrews
Andrews, K. (2021) Reopening to tourists and other international travellers to secure our economic recovery (media
release). https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/
Pages/reopening-to-tourists-and-other-international-travellers-to-secure-our-economic-recovery.aspx#:~:-text=Since%20the%20Morrison%20Government%20
commenced,loved%20ones%2C%20work%20or%20
study. Last accessed 3 December 2022.
The relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of literature until
- De Albuquerque Veloso
- M Machado
- B Roberts
- B L H Wong
- R Van Kessel
- E Mossialos
de Albuquerque Veloso Machado, M., Roberts, B., Wong, B.
L. H., van Kessel, R. and Mossialos, E. (2021) The relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine
hesitancy: a scoping review of literature until August 2021.
Frontiers in Public Health, 9, https://www.frontiersin.
org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2021.747787. Last accessed 1
December 2022.
Here's everything we know about Australia's four-phase plan out of the COVID pandemic
- J Riga
Riga, J. (2021) Here's everything we know about Australia's
four-phase plan out of the COVID pandemic. ABC
News
Online.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/national-cabinet-four-phase-plan-out-of-covid-pandemic/100339314. Last accessed 1 December
2022.