Explore the vast range of titles available.

Vaccine hesitancy has been little studied in low- and middle-income countries but is a potential concern because vaccine refusal may increase the burden of infectious diseases and impede control efforts. The aim of this study was to compare vaccine hesitancy between locals, long-time city residents, and non-locals, who have more recently moved to the city from either other urban or rural areas, in Shanghai, China. Parents of infants ≤3 months of age were surveyed at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China. Participants completed a paper questionnaire utilizing the 10-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which was developed by the World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization. Items were grouped based on internal consistency, and regressed onto demographic variables using a negative binomial model. In total, 1,188 (92.5%) individuals participated. For most items on the scale, parents expressed positive beliefs about vaccines. However, about half of parents somewhat or strongly agreed that new vaccines carried more risks than older vaccines, and 71.6% somewhat or strongly agreed that they were concerned about serious adverse effects. Seven items from the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were highly correlated and mapped onto \"lack of confidence\"; the other three items were analysed separately. Compared to mothers, fathers had less lack of confidence (β: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.12, -0.01), and individuals living in the outer suburbs (β: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.25) and rural non-locals (β: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.18) had greater lack of confidence in vaccines compared to their urban or local counterparts, respectively. Shanghai parents professed confidence in certain vaccine benefits, but vaccine messaging could focus on addressing misconceptions about vaccines for diseases no longer common, newer vaccines, and adverse effects associated with vaccination. These messages may need to be separately tailored to locals and non-locals, who have differing concerns.

Background While the association between inadequate health literacy and adverse health outcomes has been well documented, less is known about the impact of health literacy on health perceptions, such as perceptions of control over health, and preventive health behaviors. Methods We identified a subsample of participants ( N  = 707) from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative sample of older adults, who participated in health literacy testing. Self-reported health literacy was measured with a literacy screening question, and objective health literacy with a summed score of items from the Test of Functional Health Literacy. We compared answers on these items to those related to participation in health behaviors such as cancer screening, exercise, and tobacco use, as well as self-referencing health beliefs. Results In logistic regression models adjusted for gender, education, race, and age, participants with adequate self-reported health literacy (compared to poorer levels of health literacy) had greater odds of participation in mammography within the last 2 years (Odds ratio [OR] = 2.215, p  = 0.01) and participation in moderate exercise two or more times per week (OR = 1.512, p  = 0.03). Participants with adequate objective health literacy had reduced odds of participation in monthly breast self-exams (OR = 0.369, p  = 0.004) and reduced odds of current tobacco use (OR = 0.456, p  = 0.03). In adjusted linear regression analyses, self-reported health literacy made a small but significant contribution to explaining perceived control of health (β 0.151, p  = <0.001) and perceived social standing (β 0.112, p  = 0.002). Conclusion In a subsample of older adult participants of the HRS, measures of health literacy were positively related to several health promoting behaviors and health-related beliefs and non-use of breast self-exams, a screening behavior of questionable benefit. These relationships varied however, between self-reported and objectively-measured health literacy. Further investigation into the specific mechanisms that lead higher literacy people to pursue health promoting actions appears clearly warranted.

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic’s early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

As the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved use of artificial intelligence (AI) for medical imaging rises, radiologists are increasingly integrating AI into their clinical practices. In lung cancer screening, diagnostic AI offers a second set of eyes with the potential to detect cancer earlier than human radiologists. Despite AI's promise, a potential problem with its integration is the erosion of patient confidence in clinician expertise when there is a discrepancy between the radiologist's and the AI's interpretation of the imaging findings. We examined how discrepancies between AI-derived recommendations and radiologists' recommendations affect patients' agreement with radiologists' recommendations and satisfaction with their radiologists. We also analyzed how patients' medical maximizing-minimizing preferences moderate these relationships. We conducted a randomized, between-subjects experiment with 1606 US adult participants. Assuming the role of patients, participants imagined undergoing a low-dose computerized tomography scan for lung cancer screening and receiving results and recommendations from (1) a radiologist only, (2) AI and a radiologist in agreement, (3) a radiologist who recommended more testing than AI (ie, radiologist overcalled AI), or (4) a radiologist who recommended less testing than AI (ie, radiologist undercalled AI). Participants rated the radiologist on three criteria: agreement with the radiologist's recommendation, how likely they would be to recommend the radiologist to family and friends, and how good of a provider they perceived the radiologist to be. We measured medical maximizing-minimizing preferences and categorized participants as maximizers (ie, those who seek aggressive intervention), minimizers (ie, those who prefer no or passive intervention), and neutrals (ie, those in the middle). Participants' agreement with the radiologist's recommendation was significantly lower when the radiologist undercalled AI (mean 4.01, SE 0.07, P<.001) than in the other 3 conditions, with no significant differences among them (radiologist overcalled AI [mean 4.63, SE 0.06], agreed with AI [mean 4.55, SE 0.07], or had no AI [mean 4.57, SE 0.06]). Similarly, participants were least likely to recommend (P<.001) and positively rate (P<.001) the radiologist who undercalled AI, with no significant differences among the other conditions. Maximizers agreed with the radiologist who overcalled AI (β=0.82, SE 0.14; P<.001) and disagreed with the radiologist who undercalled AI (β=-0.47, SE 0.14; P=.001). However, whereas minimizers disagreed with the radiologist who overcalled AI (β=-0.43, SE 0.18, P=.02), they did not significantly agree with the radiologist who undercalled AI (β=0.14, SE 0.17, P=.41). Radiologists who recommend less testing than AI may face decreased patient confidence in their expertise, but they may not face this same penalty for giving more aggressive recommendations than AI. Patients' reactions may depend in part on whether their general preferences to maximize or minimize align with the radiologists' recommendations. Future research should test communication strategies for radiologists' disclosure of AI discrepancies to patients.

Objectives. We sought to evaluate longitudinal trends in people’s risk perceptions and vaccination intentions during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Methods. We used data from 10 waves of a US national survey focusing on the H1N1 pandemic (administered between May 2009 and January 2010) to conduct a longitudinal analysis of adult respondents’ risk perceptions and vaccination intentions. Results. Self-reported perceived risk of becoming infected with H1N1 paralleled H1N1 activity throughout the pandemic’s first year. However, intention to be vaccinated declined from 50% (May 2009) to 16% (January 2010) among those who remained unvaccinated (27% had been vaccinated by January 2010). Respondents who indicated that they had previously been vaccinated against seasonal influenza reported significantly higher H1N1 vaccination intentions than those who had not been vaccinated (67% vs 26%; P < .001). Conclusions. Reported intention to be vaccinated declined well before vaccine became available and decreased throughout the pandemic year. To the extent that prior vaccination for seasonal influenza vaccination is a strong correlate of H1N1 risk perceptions, encouraging seasonal influenza vaccination may benefit pandemic preparedness efforts.

Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.

•China’s list of government-funded vaccines is relatively small but will increase.•Shanghai parents preferred safer, more effective vaccines produced in China.•Among entire population, cost did not significanlty contribute to preferences.•More affluent individuals had a preference for more expensive vaccines. It is not clear what kind of preferences parents in China would have for vaccines that could be added to a future immunization schedule. This study’s aim was to assess Chinese parents’ preferences for attributes of vaccines. We surveyed parents of young infants ≤3 months of age at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, in 2017. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to present parents with choices between two hypothetical profiles of vaccines which were described using the following attributes: cost, risk of side effect, location of vaccine manufacturer, vaccine testing, vaccine effectiveness, severity of disease, disease prevalence. A logistic regression output estimates of preference utilities. In total, 599 caregivers completed the DCE. Parents expressed lower preference for vaccines with a 30% chance of fever as an adverse event vs a 10% chance (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.64), for vaccines only 85% effective vs those 95% effective (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.62), and for imported vaccines (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.92) and those not tested in Chinese children (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.53) compared to domestic vaccines. More affluent groups preferred more expensive vaccines whereas less affluent groups did not express cost-based preferences. Promotion of vaccines in China should focus on parents’ stated preferences, which include past testing done in Chinese children – which is, in fact, required of all licensed vaccines in China. Information about these trials could emphasize low risk of adverse events and high effectiveness.

Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China.

BACKGROUND: Many people display omission bias in medical decision making, accepting the risk of passive nonintervention rather than actively choosing interventions (such as vaccinations) that result in lower levels of risk. OBJECTIVE: Testing whether people's preferences for active interventions would increase when deciding for others versus for themselves. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey participants imagined themselves in 1 of 4 roles: patient, physician treating a single patient, medical director creating treatment guidelines, or parent deciding for a child. All read 2 short scenarios about vaccinations for a deadly flu and treatments for a slow‐growing cancer. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand three hundred and ninety‐nine people drawn from a demographically stratified internet sample. MEASURES: Chosen or recommended treatments. We also measured participants' emotional response to our task. RESULTS: Preferences for risk‐reducing active treatments were significantly stronger for participants imagining themselves as medical professionals than for those imagining themselves as patients (vaccination: 73% [physician] & 63% [medical director] vs 48% [patient], Ps<.001; chemotherapy: 68% & 68% vs 60%, Ps<.012). Similar results were observed for the parental role (vaccination: 57% vs 48%, P=.003; chemotherapy: 72% vs 60%, P<.001). Reported emotional reactions were stronger in the responsible medical professional and parental roles yet were also independently associated with treatment choice, with higher scores associated with reduced omission tendencies (OR=1.15 for both regressions, Ps<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment preferences may be substantially influenced by a decision‐making role. As certain roles appear to reinforce “big picture” thinking about difficult risk tradeoffs, physicians and patients should consider re‐framing treatment decisions to gain new, and hopefully beneficial, perspectives.