"The vaccination is positive; I don't think it's the panacea": A qualitative study on COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among ethnically diverse healthcare workers in the United Kingdom.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
10
01
2022
accepted:
12
08
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Globally, healthcare workers (HCWs) were prioritised for receiving vaccinations against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Previous research has shown disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among HCWs based on ethnicity, job role, sex, age, and deprivation. However, vaccine attitudes underpinning these variations and factors influencing these attitudes are yet to be fully explored. We conducted a qualitative study with 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, sexes, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK). Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or telephonically, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a two-pronged analytical approach was adopted: content analysis for categorising vaccine attitudes and thematic analysis for identifying factors influencing vaccine attitudes. We identified four different COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among HCWs: Active Acceptance, Passive Acceptance, Passive Decline, and Active Decline. Content analysis of the transcripts showed that HCWs from ethnic minority communities and female HCWs were more likely to either decline (actively/passively) or passively accept vaccination-reflecting hesitancy. Factors influencing these attitudes included: trust; risk perception; social influences; access and equity; considerations about the future. Our data show that attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine are diverse, and elements of hesitancy may persist even after uptake. This has implications for the sustainability of the COVID-19 vaccine programme, particularly as new components (for example boosters) are being offered. We also found that vaccine attitudes differed by ethnicity, sex and job role, which calls for an intersectional and dynamic approach for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs. Trust, risk perception, social influences, access and equity and future considerations all influence vaccine attitudes and have a bearing on HCWs' decision about accepting or declining the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on our findings, we recommend building trust, addressing structural inequities and, designing inclusive and accessible information to address hesitancy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Globally, healthcare workers (HCWs) were prioritised for receiving vaccinations against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Previous research has shown disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among HCWs based on ethnicity, job role, sex, age, and deprivation. However, vaccine attitudes underpinning these variations and factors influencing these attitudes are yet to be fully explored.
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative study with 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, sexes, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK). Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or telephonically, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a two-pronged analytical approach was adopted: content analysis for categorising vaccine attitudes and thematic analysis for identifying factors influencing vaccine attitudes.
FINDINGS
We identified four different COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among HCWs: Active Acceptance, Passive Acceptance, Passive Decline, and Active Decline. Content analysis of the transcripts showed that HCWs from ethnic minority communities and female HCWs were more likely to either decline (actively/passively) or passively accept vaccination-reflecting hesitancy. Factors influencing these attitudes included: trust; risk perception; social influences; access and equity; considerations about the future.
INTERPRETATION
Our data show that attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine are diverse, and elements of hesitancy may persist even after uptake. This has implications for the sustainability of the COVID-19 vaccine programme, particularly as new components (for example boosters) are being offered. We also found that vaccine attitudes differed by ethnicity, sex and job role, which calls for an intersectional and dynamic approach for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs. Trust, risk perception, social influences, access and equity and future considerations all influence vaccine attitudes and have a bearing on HCWs' decision about accepting or declining the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on our findings, we recommend building trust, addressing structural inequities and, designing inclusive and accessible information to address hesitancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36084076
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273687
pii: PONE-D-22-00819
pmc: PMC9462779
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0273687Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V027549/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MP reports grants from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from QIAGEN, outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. MG, FW, IQ, AAO, OH, JC, and LBN, have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Postgrad Med J. 2023 Jun 15;99(1172):520-528
pubmed: 37319159
Br Dent J. 2008 Mar 22;204(6):291-5
pubmed: 18356873
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;272:113688
pubmed: 33485215
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 03;9(2):
pubmed: 33546165
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Oct;9:100180
pubmed: 34308406
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 24;17(1):e0260949
pubmed: 35073312
Lancet. 2021 May 8;397(10286):1725-1735
pubmed: 33901423
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 9;11(7):e049611
pubmed: 34244281
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jul;112:1-11
pubmed: 24788111
PLoS Med. 2021 Nov 5;18(11):e1003823
pubmed: 34739480
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Apr;46:101346
pubmed: 35308309
J R Soc Med. 2021 May;114(5):235-236
pubmed: 34028294
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug;51(5):484-487
pubmed: 33964486
Ethn Health. 2022 Oct;27(7):1555-1574
pubmed: 34092149
Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Feb;114:103854
pubmed: 33326864
Sociol Health Illn. 2020 Feb;42(2):262-276
pubmed: 31562655
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 17;11(9):e050647
pubmed: 34535484
BMJ. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):194
pubmed: 11159610
J Hosp Infect. 2021 Feb;108:168-173
pubmed: 33259883
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Sep;41(5):617-32
pubmed: 7502096
Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Aug 20;71(4-5):211-214
pubmed: 34002797
Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 17;12(1):3698
pubmed: 34140469