Reducing Vaccination Hesitancy during a Covid-19 Pandemic

Francis Ajeneye

Blood Sciences Department, Maidstone and Tunbridge Well Hospitals NHS Trust, TN2 4QJ, U.K All Correspondences to: Francis Ajeneye, f.ajeneye1@nhs.net

INTRODUCTION

Vaccines save millions of lives each year. Vaccines work by teaching the body’s natural defenses, the immune system to recognize and

The risk of vaccination and the untimely release of Covid had led to fewer public health websites than searches without risk as a search term. There is a significant relationship between organization on social media and public doubts of vaccine safety. In addition,

fight off the viruses and bacteria they target. After vaccination, if the body is later exposed to those corresponding viruses, the body immediately recognize to fight the infection. The killer T-cells destroy the infected cells, while the B-cells and helper T-cells support antibody production. The challenge facing government and public health authorities is designing tailored strategies that successfully reach vaccination skeptics.

Designing a vaccine against the new coronavirus is an enormous challenge for researcher world-wide, but if there are things we learnt from history to reduce the hesitance of vaccination uptake during a pandemic, this must be addressed by the policymakers across the world.

Public acceptance of vaccination programs is essential for unnecessary exposures to diseases. However, increasing sectors of the population across the world have expressed hesitancy about participating in such programs, which might lead to the re-emergence of vaccine preventable diseases.

Policymakers need to begin planning for ways to work against the patterns of hesitancy in vaccine uptake by conducting a qualitative research prior to the release of Vaccination and the insights gathered about your audience will help policyholders to develop evidence- informed communication activities prior to introducing any new vaccines. While public outreach and education about the importance of vaccines will likely be the cornerstone of any vaccine deployment. The use of the internet and social media stations spreads, the challenge of vaccination hesitancy presents itself as an increasingly trans-national problem, a characteristic that further complicates policymakers’ tasks of designing effective policies.

There are many studies in this area are guided by an explicit theory vaccination hesitancy, short- or long- term side-effects or are ineffective, attitude factors, religious belief and the distrust of governments and historical abuse of experiments on vulnerable subjects.

there is a substantial relationship between foreign disinformation campaigns and declining vaccination coverage.

Much of the hesitation to get a Covid-19 vaccine stems from the lack of trust in the health care system, the pharmaceutical companies that brought the vaccines to market within a record time, in some vaccination advocates, and in our government that is regulating and promoting it. In addition to strategies to combat misinformation, we must wage an all-out effort to build public trust. To compensate for this, national and state public health authorities and vaccine administration sites could provide real-world safety data to help people of various ethnicities and conditions see how the vaccine is faring in groups that most closely represent them.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): “Researchers have been working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the progression can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines.”

The COVID-19 RNA vaccine consists of mRNA molecules made in a laboratory that code for parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, specifically the virus’ spike protein. Once injected into the body, the mRNA instructs the cells to produce antigens – such as the spike protein which are then detected by immune cells, triggering a response by the body’s lymphocytes. Whoever is exposed to the COVID-19 coronavirus in the future would have an immune system to fight off the infection.

There are good reasons for an immunization programme to conduct its own qualitative formative research before the introduction any new vaccine. The research provides valuable insights into the target audience’s points of view, concerns, and needs, Attendance to the audience’s concerns benefits the overall immunization programme. By identifying the population’s knowledge gaps and misinformation and highlighting programme deficiencies can help immunization staff modify

Reducing Vaccination Hesitancy…

services accordingly and finally Involving key stakeholders and target group members in the research builds the community’s sense of participation in the work of the programme. The public will have a greater sense of ownership of the vaccination programme when they feel they have been heard.

In many of the studies, a large number of the subjects were poor, vulnerable, racial minorities, and/or prisoners. Often, subjects were sick or disabled people, whose physicians told them that they were receiving “medical treatment”. They were used as the subjects of harmful and deadly experiments, without their knowledge or consent. In response to this, interest groups and institutions across the world have worked to design policies and oversight to ensure that future human subject research in the would be ethical and legal.

Eventually, for certain groups, policymakers may need to employ accessible ways for people to get adapted health information about the vaccine. This is especially important for marginalized populations who have less access to doctors. Possible approaches range from a simple text messaging system, influential community leaders, religious leaders, charity organizations to encourage immunization. Availability in multiple languages will be crucial.

Often the absolute complexity of the health care system prevents people from getting the right care. Once there is interest in getting the vaccine, people need to know when and where to get it. Because the vaccine is being rolled out in waves to different populations,

We should set up vaccination sites to offer easy access, minimize waiting times, and provide more time and attention to those who need it. When it comes to access, convenience is key. Besides, we can leverage the innovation and infrastructure built for Covid-19 testing. For example, drive-through testing sites that allow people to stay in their car could add a vaccination service . Vaccination sites could designate certain time slots for anyone who wants or needs a higher-touch experience, such as children, the elderly, those with physical challenges, and those who fear needles.

The hardest part of the vaccination process is actually the day one to day three after someone has received the shot when a significant proportion of people experience side effects, which range from pain at the injection site to headaches to low-grade fevers. Managing expectations about these side effects is important. If people expect no side effects but feel terrible, they will have a bad experience; conversely, if they feel less discomfort than anticipated, they will have a better experience.

Unfortunately, getting the shot doesn’t mean people can immediately go back to their pre-Immunity to the vaccine takes days to build, a second dose of the vaccine is vital, and we still need to wear masks after getting vaccinated.

Social media can add a function that makes it easy for people to notify the members of their networks that they have scheduled or received the first shot and then the second.

CONCLUSION:

Policymakers need to begin planning now for ways to work against the patterns found in many studies about vaccination hesitancy. While public outreach and education about the importance of vaccines will likely be the cornerstone of any vaccine deployment. More research on the influence of different sources of information is needed to determine the best way to disseminate information to public.

REFERENCES

1. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 23;6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. PMID: 21513547; PMCID: PMC3096582
2. Harmsen, I.A., Mollema, L., Ruiter, R.A. et al. Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: a qualitative study using online focus groups. BMC Public H e a l t h 1 3 , 1 1 8 3 ( 2 0 1 3 ) . https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1183.
3. Kieslich K. (2018). Addressing vaccination hesitancy in Europe: a case study in state-society relations. European journal of public health, 2 8( s u p p l _ 3 ) , 3 0 – 3 3 . https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky155.
4. Mesch, G. S., & Schwirian, K. P. (2015). Social and political determinants of vaccine hesitancy: Lessons learned from the H1N1 pandemic of 2009- 2010. American journal of infection control, 43(11), 1 1 6 1 – 1 1 6 5 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6/j.ajic.2015.06.031

1. Eisenstein M.(2014). Public health: An injection of trust. Nature. Mar 6;507(7490):S17-9. doi: 10.1038/507s17a. PMID: 24611174.
2. S.W. Roush, T.V. Murphy (2007). Vaccine- preventable disease table working G. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States JAMA, 298; pp. 2155-2163.
3. J.J. Rainey, M. Watkins, T.K. Ryman, P. Sandhu, A. Bo, K. Banerjee (2011). Reasons related to non- vaccination and under-vaccination of children in low and middle income countries: findings from a systematic review of the published literature, 1999–2009 Vaccine, 29; pp. 8215-8221.
4. R.W. Rogers (1975) Protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude-change J Psychol, 91; pp. 93-114.
5. A. Bish, S. Michie .(2010) Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review Br J Health Psychol, 15; pp. 797-824.
6. E. Mills, A.R. Jadad, C. Ross, K. Wilson (2005). Systematic review of qualitative studies exploring parental beliefs and attitudes toward childhood vaccination identifies common barriers to vaccinationJ Clin Epidemiol, 58; pp. 1081-1088.
7. Bond L, Nolan T.(2011). Making sense of perceptions of risk of diseases and vaccinations: a qualitative study combining models of health beliefs, decision-making and risk perception. BMC Public Health. 2011 Dec 20;11:943. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-943. PMID: 22182354; PMCID: PMC3260331
8. K.F. Brown, J.S. Kroll, M.J. Hudson, M. Ramsay, J. Green, S.J. Long, et al. (2010). Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review Vaccine, 28; pp. 4235-4248.
9. D.S. Diekema (2005). Responding to parental refusals of immunization of children Pediatrics, 115; pp. 1428-1431.
10. M.E. Falagas, E. Zarkadoulia (2008). Factors associated with suboptimal compliance to vaccinations in children in developed countries: a systematic review Curr Med Res Opin, 24; pp. 1719-1741
11. S.J. Kessels, H.S. Marshall, M. Watson, A.J. Braunack-Mayer, R. Reuzel, R.L. Tooher Factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in teenage girls: a systematic review Vaccine, 30 (2012), pp. 3546-3556