10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: a large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study

      research-article

      , PhD a , b , , , MSc a , , , MSc a , , PhD a , , Prof, PhD a , c , d , *

      Lancet (London, England)

      Elsevier

      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.

          Summary

          Background

          There is growing evidence of vaccine delays or refusals due to a lack of trust in the importance, safety, or effectiveness of vaccines, alongside persisting access issues. Although immunisation coverage is reported administratively across the world, no similarly robust monitoring system exists for vaccine confidence. In this study, vaccine confidence was mapped across 149 countries between 2015 and 2019.

          Methods

          In this large-scale retrospective data-driven analysis, we examined global trends in vaccine confidence using data from 290 surveys done between September, 2015, and December, 2019, across 149 countries, and including 284 381 individuals. We used a Bayesian multinomial logit Gaussian process model to produce estimates of public perceptions towards the safety, importance, and effectiveness of vaccines. Associations between vaccine uptake and a large range of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status, and sources of trust, were determined using univariate Bayesian logistic regressions. Gibbs sampling was used for Bayesian model inference, with 95% Bayesian highest posterior density intervals used to capture uncertainty.

          Findings

          Between November, 2015, and December, 2019, we estimate that confidence in the importance, safety, and effectiveness of vaccines fell in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and South Korea. We found significant increases in respondents strongly disagreeing that vaccines are safe between 2015 and 2019 in six countries: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Serbia. We find signs that confidence has improved between 2018 and 2019 in some EU member states, including Finland, France, Ireland, and Italy, with recent losses detected in Poland. Confidence in the importance of vaccines (rather than in their safety or effectiveness) had the strongest univariate association with vaccine uptake compared with other determinants considered. When a link was found between individuals' religious beliefs and uptake, findings indicated that minority religious groups tended to have lower probabilities of uptake.

          Interpretation

          To our knowledge, this is the largest study of global vaccine confidence to date, allowing for cross-country comparisons and changes over time. Our findings highlight the importance of regular monitoring to detect emerging trends to prompt interventions to build and sustain vaccine confidence.

          Funding

          European Commission, Wellcome, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey

          Background Public trust in immunization is an increasingly important global health issue. Losses in confidence in vaccines and immunization programmes can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, risking disease outbreaks and challenging immunization goals in high- and low-income settings. National and international immunization stakeholders have called for better monitoring of vaccine confidence to identify emerging concerns before they evolve into vaccine confidence crises. Methods We perform a large-scale, data-driven study on worldwide attitudes to immunizations. This survey – which we believe represents the largest survey on confidence in immunization to date – examines perceptions of vaccine importance, safety, effectiveness, and religious compatibility among 65,819 individuals across 67 countries. Hierarchical models are employed to probe relationships between individual- and country-level socio-economic factors and vaccine attitudes obtained through the four-question, Likert-scale survey. Findings Overall sentiment towards vaccinations is positive across all 67 countries, however there is wide variability between countries and across world regions. Vaccine-safety related sentiment is particularly negative in the European region, which has seven of the ten least confident countries, with 41% of respondents in France and 36% of respondents in Bosnia & Herzegovina reporting that they disagree that vaccines are safe (compared to a global average of 13%). The oldest age group (65+) and Roman Catholics (amongst all faiths surveyed) are associated with positive views on vaccine sentiment, while the Western Pacific region reported the highest level of religious incompatibility with vaccines. Countries with high levels of schooling and good access to health services are associated with lower rates of positive sentiment, pointing to an emerging inverse relationship between vaccine sentiments and socio-economic status. Conclusions Regular monitoring of vaccine attitudes – coupled with monitoring of local immunization rates – at the national and sub-national levels can identify populations with declining confidence and acceptance. These populations should be prioritized to further investigate the drivers of negative sentiment and to inform appropriate interventions to prevent adverse public health outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007-2012.

            Vaccine "hesitancy" is an emerging term in the literature and discourse on vaccine decision-making and determinants of vaccine acceptance. It recognizes a continuum between the domains of vaccine acceptance and vaccine refusal and de-polarizes previous characterization of individuals and groups as either anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine. The primary aims of this systematic review are to: 1) identify research on vaccine hesitancy; 2) identify determinants of vaccine hesitancy in different settings including its context-specific causes, its expression and its impact; and 3) inform the development of a model for assessing determinants of vaccine hesitancy in different settings as proposed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group (SAGE WG) for dealing with vaccine hesitancy. A broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy around vaccines, was applied across multiple databases. Peer-reviewed studies were selected for inclusion if they focused on childhood vaccines [≤ 7 years of age], used multivariate analyses, and were published between January 2007 and November 2012. Our results show a variety of factors as being associated with vaccine hesitancy but they do not allow for a complete classification and confirmation of their independent and relative strength of influence. Determinants of vaccine hesitancy are complex and context-specific - varying across time, place and vaccines. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool.

              In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                26 September 2020
                26 September 2020
                : 396
                : 10255
                : 898-908
                Affiliations
                [a ]The Vaccine Confidence Project, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [b ]Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [c ]Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
                [d ]Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Heidi J Larson, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK heidi.larson@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                [†]

                Joint first authors

                Article
                S0140-6736(20)31558-0
                10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31558-0
                7607345
                32919524
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article