What determines mpox vaccination uptake? Assessing the effect of intent-to-vaccinate versus other determinants among men who have sex with men.

Intention Men who have sex with men Monkeypox Smallpox Vaccine Vaccination

Journal

Vaccine
ISSN: 1873-2518
Titre abrégé: Vaccine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8406899

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 24 08 2023
revised: 08 11 2023
accepted: 03 12 2023
medline: 11 12 2023
pubmed: 11 12 2023
entrez: 10 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In response to the mpox outbreak, vaccination was offered in the Netherlands to men who have sex with men (MSM) at increased risk for mpox. Successful vaccination campaigns are leveraged by high intent-to-vaccinate, yet intent might not always lead to uptake. Therefore, we assessed the impact of intent-to-vaccinate and other factors on vaccination uptake among participants of the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS). In July 2022, prior to the mpox vaccination campaign, we distributed an online survey regarding mpox intent-to-vaccinate, as well as e.g. beliefs, attitude, subjective norms, and perception of risk among ACS participants (all MSM). Vaccination uptake was self-reported during study visits after August 2022. The association between vaccination intent and uptake, and determinants of intent, was jointly assessed using a structural equation model (SEM) based on components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). In a second SEM, determinants of intent were allowed to have a direct effect on vaccination uptake. 492 MSM (median age = 46 years) were included in analyses. 380 (77%) had high intent-to-vaccinate and 238 (48%) received at least one vaccine dose. In the first model with a direct relation between intent and uptake only, TBP components predicted intent as expected, and high intent-to-vaccinate was significantly associated with getting vaccinated (β = 1.1, 95%CI = 0.6-1.5). However, 175/380 (46%) participants with high intent-to-vaccinate did not get vaccinated. The second model had an improved model fit compared to the first model. The effect of intent on uptake was non-significant, and only perceiving to be at higher risk of infection significantly increased vaccination uptake later on (β = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.26-0.59). Having a steady relationship decreased the probability of vaccination (β = -0.59, 95%CI = -1.0- -0.18). While intent-to-vaccinate for mpox was high among MSM, high intent did not necessarily result in vaccine uptake. Mpox risk perception might have played a more pivotal role in getting vaccinated, which may be related to the evolution of vaccination eligibility criteria and accessibility to the vaccine.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In response to the mpox outbreak, vaccination was offered in the Netherlands to men who have sex with men (MSM) at increased risk for mpox. Successful vaccination campaigns are leveraged by high intent-to-vaccinate, yet intent might not always lead to uptake. Therefore, we assessed the impact of intent-to-vaccinate and other factors on vaccination uptake among participants of the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS).
METHOD METHODS
In July 2022, prior to the mpox vaccination campaign, we distributed an online survey regarding mpox intent-to-vaccinate, as well as e.g. beliefs, attitude, subjective norms, and perception of risk among ACS participants (all MSM). Vaccination uptake was self-reported during study visits after August 2022. The association between vaccination intent and uptake, and determinants of intent, was jointly assessed using a structural equation model (SEM) based on components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). In a second SEM, determinants of intent were allowed to have a direct effect on vaccination uptake.
RESULTS RESULTS
492 MSM (median age = 46 years) were included in analyses. 380 (77%) had high intent-to-vaccinate and 238 (48%) received at least one vaccine dose. In the first model with a direct relation between intent and uptake only, TBP components predicted intent as expected, and high intent-to-vaccinate was significantly associated with getting vaccinated (β = 1.1, 95%CI = 0.6-1.5). However, 175/380 (46%) participants with high intent-to-vaccinate did not get vaccinated. The second model had an improved model fit compared to the first model. The effect of intent on uptake was non-significant, and only perceiving to be at higher risk of infection significantly increased vaccination uptake later on (β = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.26-0.59). Having a steady relationship decreased the probability of vaccination (β = -0.59, 95%CI = -1.0- -0.18).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
While intent-to-vaccinate for mpox was high among MSM, high intent did not necessarily result in vaccine uptake. Mpox risk perception might have played a more pivotal role in getting vaccinated, which may be related to the evolution of vaccination eligibility criteria and accessibility to the vaccine.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38072753
pii: S0264-410X(23)01449-4
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.018
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Vita W Jongen (VW)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Stichting hiv monitoring, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: vjongen@ggd.amsterdam.nl.

Marije L Groot Bruinderink (ML)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Anders Boyd (A)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Stichting hiv monitoring, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AII), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jeffrey C D Koole (JCD)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Buhari Teker (B)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers (NHTM)

Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases, and Environmental Health, Heerlen, South Limburg Public Health Service, the Netherlands; Department of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Ymke J Evers (YJ)

Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases, and Environmental Health, Heerlen, South Limburg Public Health Service, the Netherlands; Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Maarten F Schim van der Loeff (MF)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AII), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute (APH), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Maria Prins (M)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AII), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute (APH), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Henry J C de Vries (HJC)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AII), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute (APH), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, +Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Amy Matser (A)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AII), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute (APH), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Udi Davidovich (U)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH