80 Archetypes of vaccine hesitant caregivers towards COVID-19 immunization during a global pandemic: A qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Public Health and Preventive Medicine Background As Canada embarks on its rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy has the potential to hamper success of the vaccination campaign. Multiple surveys show that the number of Canadians willing to take the vaccine is insufficient to achieve herd immunity. Therefore, governments and health agencies are looking for solutions to increase vaccination uptake. Obtaining a better understanding of the perspective of those who are vaccine-hesitant is critical to developing successful implementation strategies for COVID-19 vaccination. Objectives To explore COVID-19 vaccination determinants among hesitant caregivers and describe categories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Design/Methods We conducted 23 semi-structured telephone interviews with parents recruited from a tertiary pediatric care centre. Seventeen participants had previously attended a specialty clinic to discuss vaccine hesitancy; the remaining were recruited from an infectious diseases follow-up clinic. The interview guide was structured around the Theoretical Domains Framework, assessing 14 behavioural constructs to identify specific determinants that guide behaviour change. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two independent data coders using a pragmatic inductive approach. Recurring themes were noted among subgroups of participants, who were subsequently divided into categories based on their underlying concerns. Results Five archetypes of vaccine-hesitant caregivers emerged in our data (Table 1). 1). “Bubble Dwellers” perceive themselves to be safe by following public health recommendations, and distinguish themselves from higher-risk groups to whom the vaccine should first be offered. 2). “Worriers and Delayers” identify the pandemic as a threat and are generally supportive of vaccines, but are concerned about side effects and issues surrounding vaccine development and prefer to delay vaccination. 3). “Need-for-Normals” are more concerned about social isolation and the economy than the direct effects of the COVID-19 virus, but express that the idea of a “return to normal” may sway their opinions regarding the vaccine. 4). “Exceptionalists” hold personal misperceptions of vaccine contraindications due to comorbidities or previous experiences with vaccination, and are concerned that the current rollout invokes a “one size fits all” model that does not apply to their circumstances. 5. “Freedom Fighters” view the pandemic as a hoax, are anti-establishment, and believe the information they have been provided is not convincing for them to adopt the vaccine. Conclusion The evolving pandemic provides a unique opportunity to understand determinants of vaccination intention in the vaccine hesitant population. Our qualitative study is unique in that we were able to draw upon pre-identified vaccine hesitant individuals to explore their perspectives around COVID-19 immunization. We propose that rather than viewing these individuals as one homogenous group, policymakers and health professionals address these discrete subgroups with specific communication tools and information. We are hopeful that our results will help tailor implementation strategies that are targeted to different vaccine hesitancy archetypes, as the vaccine is made available to the general public in the coming year.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».