Explore the vast range of titles available.

Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine booster coverage is an ongoing global challenge. Health authorities need evidence about effective communication interventions to improve acceptance and uptake. This study aimed to test effects of persuasive messages about COVID-19 vaccine booster doses on intention to vaccinate amongst eligible adults in Australia. In this online randomised controlled trial, adult participants received one of four intervention messages or a control message. The control message provided information about booster dose eligibility. Intervention messages added to the control message, each using a different persuasive strategy, including: emphasising personal health benefits of booster doses, community health benefits, non-health benefits, and personal agency in choosing vaccination. After the intervention, participants answered items about COVID-19 booster vaccine intention and beliefs. Intervention groups were compared to the control using tests of two proportions; differences of ≥5 percentage points were deemed clinically significant. A sub-group analysis was conducted among hesitant participants. Of the 487 consenting and randomised participants, 442 (90.8%) completed the experiment and were included in the analysis. Participants viewing messages emphasising non-health benefits had the highest intention compared to those who viewed the control message (percentage point diff: 9.0, 95% CI -0.8, 18.8, p = 0.071). Intention was even higher among hesitant individuals in this intervention group compared to the control group (percentage point diff: 15.6, 95% CI -6.0, 37.3, p = 0.150). Conversely, intention was lower among hesitant individuals who viewed messages emphasising personal agency compared to the control group (percentage point diff: -10.8, 95% CI -33.0, 11.4, p = 0.330), although evidence in support of these findings is weak. Health authorities should highlight non-health benefits to encourage COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake but use messages emphasising personal agency with caution. These findings can inform communication message development and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake. Clinical trial registration: Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001404718); trial webpage: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622001404718.aspx.

Background/objectives: Influenza vaccines are recommended and free in Australia for children aged <5 years, but uptake remains low at 25.8% compared to the targets of 40% and 50%. National data on barriers hindering paediatric influenza vaccination can inform strategies to improve uptake. The aim of this study was to measure barriers to influenza vaccination in Australian children aged <5 years. Methods: A national, cross-sectional survey of parents of children aged <5 years was conducted in March/April 2024. Parents were recruited using an online panel and asked about their intention to get an influenza vaccine for their youngest child in the upcoming influenza season. An adapted version of the validated Vaccine Barriers Assessment Tool measured 14 influenza vaccination barriers. Analysis assessed the prevalence of barriers and differences between parents intending to and those unsure or not intending to vaccinate by calculating the prevalence difference and 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 2000 parents were recruited nationally. The most common barrier was parents feeling distressed when thinking about vaccinating their child against influenza (66.1% of intending parents, 65.6% of unsure/not intending parents). The barrier with the largest difference between intending and not intending/unsure parents was not prioritising their child’s influenza vaccination (47.2% vs. 6.1%, PD = 41.1 ppts, 95% CI: 35.9%, 46.3%). Other barriers with large differences were parents not feeling guilty if their unvaccinated child got influenza (41.5% vs. 7.5%, PD = 34.0 ppts, 95% CI: 28.8%, 39.1%) and parents not believing that influenza vaccines are effective (31.3% vs. 3.0%, PD = 28.2 ppts, 95% CI: 23.6%, 32.9%). Conclusions: Parents should be encouraged and supported to prioritise influenza vaccination alongside routine childhood vaccines in campaigns that emphasise disease risk and the importance, safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination, and by optimising access to influenza vaccination. We recommend conducting similar surveys regularly to monitor trends in parental barriers to childhood influenza vaccination.

Objectives: Changes in public policy are eroding vaccine confidence. Previously accepted peer-reviewed evidence around vaccination and developmental outcomes for children is being questioned. Robust, methodologically sound safety data are more needed than ever to maintain consumer confidence. Establishing further safety data on infant health, development, and allergies after COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in pregnancy may improve confidence and acceptance. Methods: This is a state-wide multi-centre prospective cohort study conducted as a sub-study of the Generation Victoria birth cohort. It will examine the risk difference for infant health, developmental, and allergy outcomes between groups of mother–baby pairs who will be examined according to exposure (vaccination against a respiratory virus during pregnancy) and comparator (no vaccination against a respiratory virus). Results: Data contributing to the analysis include GenV-collected developmental, health, and allergy outcomes to 12 months of age, as well as data from state-wide linked datasets. Conclusions: This linked-data longitudinal study will provide information on health, allergy, and developmental outcomes for infants in the first year of life after influenza and COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Implications for Public Health: The reporting of developmental data will be a new contribution to knowledge around outcomes after vaccination during pregnancy.

Background/Objectives: Understanding the psychological determinants of vaccine uptake is critical for effective public health strategies, particularly during prolonged pandemics. The Health Belief Model is widely used to examine vaccine behavior, yet its applicability in longitudinal and policy-intensive contexts remains underexplored. This study assessed how two core Health Belief Model constructs—perceived severity of and susceptibility to COVID-19—related to vaccine intentions and uptake over time, and how these perceptions varied by demographic characteristics. Methods: Data came from Optimise, a longitudinal cohort study of adults in Victoria, Australia, conducted between September 2020 and August 2022. Perceived severity of and susceptibility to COVID-19 were measured monthly, alongside COVID-19 vaccine intentions and uptake. Generalized Estimating Equations evaluated associations between these two Health Belief Model constructs and vaccine outcomes over time. Separate models identified demographic predictors of perceived severity and susceptibility. Results: Perceived severity of COVID-19 was positively associated with intention to receive further COVID-19 vaccine doses (OR = 2.53, 95% CI: 1.26–5.07) and the total vaccine doses received (OR = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.58–4.76), with these associations changing over time as vaccine mandates were lifted and the pandemic context evolved. Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 showed no significant associations with vaccine outcomes. Older age, presence of a chronic health condition, and lower employment status was associated with higher perceived severity. In contrast, perceived susceptibility was higher among high-income earners but lower among older adults and the unemployed. Conclusions: The predictive value of two Health Belief Model constructs was context- and time-dependent. Perceived severity consistently predicted vaccine uptake once mandates were lifted, while susceptibility did not. Our findings highlight the importance of context-sensitive behavioral frameworks when designing vaccine promotion strategies during extended public health crises.

Commencing on 1 January 2016, the Australian Government's ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy revised the immunisation requirements for eligibility of families to receive family assistance payments, including: the Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB‐A) end‐of‐year supplement; Child Care Benefit (CCB); and Child Care Rebate (CCR). Eligibility for the payments was extended to require children of all ages up to and including 19 years of age to be fully immunised or on a recognised catch‐up program. Two catch‐up programs, one ongoing and the other restricted to two years, were established for children aged less than 10 years, and children aged 10–19 years, respectively. Conscientious objection and vaccination on non‐medical grounds have been removed as valid exemptions from immunisation requirements, and strict criteria for a medical exemption retained. Government budget papers reported that the new measures would save $508.3 million over five years.The suggestion that low coverage may be associated with socioeconomic status (SES) has been of particular interest to those looking at reasons for under‐ or non‐vaccination. Publicly available data from the National Health Performance Authority in December 2015 reportedly showed that the percentage of fully immunised 5‐year‐old children was lower in the ‘rich’ suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, among other affluent suburbs, and this sparked much public debate. In fact, it has been suggested that childhood immunisation coverage might be lower at either end of the socioeconomic spectrum, potentially exposing inherent inequity in the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy as the financial penalty is more likely to be incurred by those at the lower end, who are more reliant on family assistance payments. To investigate this hypothesis, we undertook an ecological study in Victoria to determine if childhood immunisation coverage, by vaccine and age cohort, varied by postcode‐level SES in the preceding five years (2011 to 2015).

IntroductionImmunisation coverage varies across Papua New Guinea (PNG), with 40% of children in East New Britain Province (ENBP) classified as zero-dose (children missing diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine first dose (DTP1)) and 55% as under-immunised (missing DTP3) in 2023. This study aimed to understand routine childhood immunisation enablers and barriers in areas of ENBP reported to have highly variable DTP1, DTP3 and measles-rubella first-dose (MR1) coverage.MethodsQualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with caregivers of children aged 9–23 months and healthcare professionals in Gazelle and Kokopo districts. Local research officers conducted interviews in Tok Pisin and English. Data were thematically analysed and mapped across the six UNICEF Journey to Health and Immunisation framework stages.Results33 caregivers and 28 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Despite finding that a high proportion of caregivers’ children had received DTP, DTP3 and MR1, participants identified a myriad of contextual caregiver and healthcare professional enablers and barriers to routine immunisation. Caregiver enablers included support provided by families and community-based services; barriers included limited immunisation knowledge, financial and travel challenges, and limited availability of healthcare professionals. Healthcare professional enablers included increased operational funds and working with community leaders, while barriers were focused on service delivery including costs, non-functioning aid posts and vaccine stockouts. Strategies suggested by participants for improving vaccine uptake included developing tailored immunisation communication materials, engaging community members to support routine immunisation promotion activities, and strengthening coordination between communities and healthcare professionals.ConclusionsThis study highlights the challenge of identifying and including zero-dose children and their caregivers in research but still provides useful contextual focus points to enhance and inform tailored strategies to strengthen immunisation service delivery. These include strategies that improve bidirectional coordination and communication between healthcare professionals, community and religious leaders about routine immunisation, increase immunisation knowledge and strengthen community-based services for vaccine delivery.

IntroductionLike many countries globally, childhood immunisation coverage is below government targets in the Philippines and has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This study aimed to identify the social and behavioural drivers of routine childhood immunisation and preferred caregiver information sources to improve uptake in the Philippines.MethodsA quantitative, cross-sectional study, as part of a larger mixed-methods study, was undertaken in three regions in the Philippines with low immunisation coverage in 2023. Data on Behavioural and Social Drivers (BeSD) of immunisation, preferred information sources and vaccination status of children under 5 years were collected, analysed and reported according to the WHO BeSD framework.ResultsThe study included 653 caregivers and 950 children, with 65% of children fully immunised, 31.8% partially immunised and 2.5% being zero-dose or having received no vaccines. Key reasons for complete vaccination included the protection vaccines offer, healthcare worker recommendations and vaccines being free of charge. For partial vaccination, top reasons were intercurrent illness, inaccessible vaccination sites and parental belief that the child was too young to receive vaccines. The most common reason for non-vaccination was also intercurrent illness. The predictors of complete vaccination were older age of caregivers (46–59 years) (prevalence ratio (PR)=1.29; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.48) and low concerns about vaccine safety (PR=1.13; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25). Other Christian denominations, compared with Catholics, were less likely to have fully immunised children (PR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97). Preferred vaccine information sources included the Department of Health, healthcare workers and mass media.ConclusionsWe found that only 65% of children were fully immunised in 2023, with both access and acceptance factors impacting uptake of routine childhood vaccines. Improving service accessibility and education of healthcare workers on vaccine safety and effectiveness and more targeted messaging from health authorities and mass media about the benefits of vaccination could increase uptake in the Philippines, with learnings from this study applicable globally.

IntroductionUnderstanding barriers to childhood vaccination is crucial to inform effective interventions for maximising uptake. Published systematic reviews include different primary studies, producing varying lists of barriers. To make sense of this diverse body of literature, a comprehensive level of summary and synthesis is necessary. This overview of systematic reviews maps all potential parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination identified in systematic reviews. It synthesises these into a conceptual framework to inform development of a vaccine barriers assessment tool.MethodsWe applied Joanna Briggs methodology, searching the Epistemonikos review database and reference lists of included reviews to June 2020. Systematic reviews of qualitative or quantitative data on parent-level barriers to routine vaccination in preschool-aged children were included. Reviews addressing influenza, reporting non-modifiable determinants or reporting barriers not relevant to parents were excluded. Where possible, we extracted review details, barrier descriptions and the number, setting and design of primary studies. Two authors independently screened search results and inductively coded barrier descriptions.ResultsWe screened 464 papers, identifying 30 relevant reviews with minimal overlap. Fourteen reviews included qualitative and quantitative primary studies, seven included quantitative and seven included qualitative studies only. Two did not report included study designs. Two-thirds of reviews (n=20; 67%) only included primary studies from high-income countries. We extracted 573 barrier descriptions and inductively coded these into 64 unique barriers in six overarching categories: (1) Access, (2) Clinic or Health System Barriers, (3) Concerns and Beliefs, (4) Health Perceptions and Experiences, (5) Knowledge and Information and (6) Social or Family Influence.ConclusionsA global overview of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccine uptake identified 64 barriers to inform development of a new comprehensive survey instrument. This instrument will assess both access and acceptance barriers to more accurately diagnose the reasons for under-vaccination in children in different settings.

Background Adolescents with disability have lower vaccination rates than the general population, including HPV vaccination. Understanding the multi-level influences on vaccination in specialist schools is crucial to achieve optimal vaccination coverage and vaccination experiences for adolescents living with disability. Objective To identify and improve understanding of the facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination among adolescents with intellectual disabilities or autism in Victorian specialist schools to inform strategies to increase vaccination acceptance and uptake. Methods Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (adolescents with disabilities, parents, school and council immunisation staff) from six specialist schools in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed thematically. Inductively derived themes were then deductively mapped across the UNICEF ‘Journey to Immunization’ model. Results 32 interviews were conducted with stakeholders (2 adolescents, 7 parents, 13 school staff, 10 council staff). Trust in vaccines was high, but knowledge of the HPV vaccine was limited. Barriers included lack of accessible information for parents, the consent process, behavioural challenges and vaccine-related anxiety among students. The immunisation program in special schools was perceived as convenient, however preparing students for vaccination day and catering to individual student needs were key. Participants expressed a need for more parent information about options and additional support for vaccination outside of the school program. Conclusions Our study identified a range of facilitators and barriers to the school immunisation program for students with disabilities in specialist schools. The next phase of this work will use co-design workshops to build on the suggestions for improvement and opportunities that could be leveraged to improve vaccination uptake.