4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors influencing refugees’ willingness to accept COVID‐19 vaccines in Greater Sydney: a qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: Achieving high vaccination coverage is a critical strategy to reducing the spread of COVID‐19 infection. This study, undertaken before the Delta variant outbreak, aimed to understand potential drivers and barriers influencing COVID‐19 vaccine uptake for refugees.

          Methods: Four focus group interviews were conducted with 37 refugees from four language groups (Arabic, Dari, Dinka and Karen). Data were analysed thematically.

          Results: Willingness to accept COVID‐19 vaccines was associated with participants’ perceptions of disease severity, and benefits such as increased immunity against COVID‐19 disease and prevention of the spread of the disease. Cues for increasing individual willingness to get vaccinated included obtaining information from trusted sources and community engagement. By contrast, information gaps on vaccines compounded by misinformation on social media contributed to a reluctance to be vaccinated.

          Conclusion: As this study was conducted before the Delta variant outbreak, participants’ stance on COVID‐19 vaccines may have changed. However, addressing vaccine literacy needs for this group remains an on‐going priority. Health promotion initiatives must be tailored to the different socio‐cultural contexts of each community.

          Implications for public health: Engagement with refugee populations is critical for optimising access and uptake of vaccines to protect health, prevent death and ensure that control of the pandemic is equitable. This may also provide valuable public health lessons for other marginalised populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the United States

            Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, with high rates of death in African American, Native American, and LatinX communities. While the mechanisms of these disparities are being investigated, they can be conceived as arising from biomedical factors as well as social determinants of health. Minority groups are disproportionately affected by chronic medical conditions and lower access to healthcare that may portend worse COVID-19 outcomes. Furthermore, minority communities are more likely to experience living and working conditions that predispose them to worse outcomes. Underpinning these disparities are long-standing structural and societal factors that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed. Clinicians can partner with patients and communities to reduce the short-term impact of COVID-19 disparities while advocating for structural change.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases

              Despite major advances in vaccination over the past century, resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses has led the World Health Organization to identify vaccine hesitancy as a major threat to global health. Vaccine hesitancy may be fueled by health information obtained from a variety of sources, including new media such as the Internet and social media platforms. As access to technology has improved, social media has attained global penetrance. In contrast to traditional media, social media allow individuals to rapidly create and share content globally without editorial oversight. Users may self-select content streams, contributing to ideological isolation. As such, there are considerable public health concerns raised by anti-vaccination messaging on such platforms and the consequent potential for downstream vaccine hesitancy, including the compromise of public confidence in future vaccine development for novel pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2 for the prevention of COVID-19. In this review, we discuss the current position of social media platforms in propagating vaccine hesitancy and explore next steps in how social media may be used to improve health literacy and foster public trust in vaccination.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                abela.mahimbo@uts.edu.au
                Journal
                Aust N Z J Public Health
                Aust N Z J Public Health
                10.1111/(ISSN)1753-6405
                AZPH
                Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1326-0200
                1753-6405
                12 May 2022
                August 2022
                12 May 2022
                : 46
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/azph.v46.4 )
                : 502-510
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] School of Public Health University of Technology Sydney New South Wales
                [ 2 ] Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health University of Sydney New South Wales
                [ 3 ] NSW Refugee Health Service New South Wales
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Dr Abela Mahimbo, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Building 10, Level 8, Room 221, 235‐253 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, 2007; e‐mail: abela.mahimbo@ 123456uts.edu.au
                Article
                AZPH13252
                10.1111/1753-6405.13252
                9347689
                35555951
                614a6712-332f-4c2f-aeda-337549c45ca1
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 01 March 2022
                : 01 October 2021
                : 01 March 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, References: 39, Pages: 9, Words: 8296
                Categories
                Covid‐19
                Covid‐19
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:03.08.2022

                refugees,covid‐19 vaccines,vaccination drivers and barriers,health belief model,qualitative study

                Comments

                Comment on this article