Decisions about adopting novel COVID‐19 vaccines among White adults in a rural state, USA: A qualitative study

Author:

Kohut Mike1ORCID,Scharnetzki Liz1,Pajka Joseph1,Jacobs Elizabeth A.1,Fairfield Kathleen M.2

Affiliation:

1. Center for Interdisciplinary Population Health Research (CIPHR) Portland Maine USA

2. Department of Medicine Maine Medical Center Portland Maine USA

Abstract

AbstractPurposeMany people, especially in rural areas of the United States, choose not to receive novel COVID‐19 vaccinations despite public health recommendations. Understanding how people describe decisions to get vaccinated or not may help to address hesitancy.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 17 rural inhabitants of Maine, a sparsely populated state in the northeastern US, about COVID‐19 vaccine decisions during the early rollout (March–May 2021). We used the framework method to compare responses, including between vaccine Adopters and Non‐adopters.FindingsAdopters framed COVID‐19 as unequivocally dangerous, if not personally, then to other people. Describing their COVID concerns, Adopters emphasized disease morbidities. By contrast, Non‐adopters never mentioned morbidities, referencing instead mortality risk, which they perceived as minimal. Instead of risks associated with the disease, Non‐adopters emphasized risks associated with vaccination. Uncertainty about the vaccine development process, augmented by social media, bolstered concerns about the long‐term unknown risks of vaccines. Vaccine Adopters ultimately described trusting the process, while Non‐adopters expressed distrust.ConclusionMany respondents framed their COVID vaccination decision by comparing the risks between the disease and the vaccine. Associating morbidity risks with COVID‐19 diminishes the relevance of vaccine risks, whereas focusing on low perceived mortality risks heightens their relevance. Results could inform efforts to address COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy in the rural US and elsewhere.Patient or Public ContributionMembers of Maine rural communities were involved throughout the study. Leaders of community health groups provided feedback on the study design, were actively involved in recruitment, and reviewed findings after analysis. All data produced and used in this study were co‐constructed through the participation of community members with lived experience.

Funder

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference41 articles.

1. IAC (Immunization Action Coalition). Historic dates and events related to vaccines and immunization.Vaccine Timeline. 2022.https://www.immunize.org/timeline/

2. What is the vaccine effect on reducing transmission in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant?

3. Barriers to vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) control: experience from the United States

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3