Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons

Diana Naranjo; Elisabeth Kimball; Jeanette Nelson; Matthew Samore; Stephen C Alder; Kevin Stroupe; Charlesnika T Evans; Frances M Weaver; Cara Ray; Ibuola Kale; Patrick O Galyean; Susan Zickmund

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290540

. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290540

Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons

Diana Naranjo ^1,^2,^*,^#, Elisabeth Kimball ^2,^#, Jeanette Nelson ^3,^#, Matthew Samore ^1,^2,^#, Stephen C Alder ^2,^3,^#, Kevin Stroupe ^4,^#, Charlesnika T Evans ^4,^5,^#, Frances M Weaver ^4,^#, Cara Ray ⁴, Ibuola Kale ^4,^#, Patrick O Galyean ^1,^2,^#, Susan Zickmund ^1,^2,^#

Editor: Andrea Cioffi⁶

¹Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center (IDEAS), VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America

²Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America

³Center for Business, Health, and Prosperity, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America

⁴Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare (CINCCH) Edward Hines Health Care System, Hines, Illinois, United States of America

⁵Department of Preventive Medicine (Epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

⁶University of Foggia: Universita degli Studi di Foggia, ITALY

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: diana.naranjo@utah.edu

Contributed equally.

Roles

Diana Naranjo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Elisabeth Kimball: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Jeanette Nelson: Project administration, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Matthew Samore: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Stephen C Alder: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Kevin Stroupe: Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Charlesnika T Evans: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Frances M Weaver: Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Cara Ray: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Ibuola Kale: Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Patrick O Galyean: Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Susan Zickmund: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Andrea Cioffi: Editor

PMCID: PMC10490972 PMID: 37682878

Abstract

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination becomes more critical as new variants continue to evolve and the United States (US) attempts to move from pandemic response to management and control. COVID-19 stands out in the unique way it has polarized patients and generated sustained vaccine hesitancy over time. We sought to understand differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant patients, with the goal of informing communication and implementation strategies to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in Veteran and non-Veteran communities. This qualitative study used interview data from focus groups conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the University of Utah; all focus groups were conducted using the same script March-July 2021. Groups included forty-six United States Veterans receiving care at 28 VA facilities across the country and 166 non-Veterans across Utah for a total of 36 one-hour focus groups. We identified perceptions and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination through qualitative analysis of focus group participant remarks, grouping connections with identified themes within domains developed based on the questions asked in the focus group guide. Responses suggest participant attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine were shaped primarily by vaccine attitude changes over time, impacted by perceived vaccine benefits, risks, differing sources of vaccine information and political ideology. Veterans appeared more polarized, being either largely non-hesitant, or hesitant, whereas non-Veterans had a wider range of hesitancy, with more participants identifying minor doubts and concerns about receiving the vaccine, or simply being altogether unsure about receiving it. Development of COVID-19 vaccine communication strategies in Veteran and non-Veteran communities should anticipate incongruous sources of information and explicitly target community differences in perceptions of risks and benefits associated with the vaccine to generate candid discussions and repair individuals’ trust. We believe this could accelerate vaccine acceptance over time.

Introduction

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) quickly ascended to—and remains—a leading cause of death in the United States (US), behind heart disease and cancer [1]. As COVID-19 variants continue to evolve and the US moves from pandemic response to management and control, acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination and its related boosters remains critical. To that end, understanding perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccination during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (January 31, 2020- May 11, 2023) has the potential to help leaders develop more effective and persuasive COVID-19 vaccine uptake strategies, and campaigns to increase inoculation overall [2]. Though there has always been a history of variability in vaccination rates and lags in public health goals (e.g., flu vaccine, pneumonia), COVID-19 stands out in the unique way it has polarized patients and generated sustained vaccine hesitancy over time [3–5]. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance or outright refusal of a vaccine despite its availability; it is complex, can vary over time, location, and type of vaccine [6]. Indeed, vaccine hesitancy itself continues to evolve and extend its influence on other infectious diseases such as measles, which had been eliminated and considered close to eradication but is instead seeing remarkable increase in incidence [7]. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [8] remains a public health challenge—as disease spreads, so too, it seems, does hesitancy toward vaccination [8–10].

The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine in the US has varied and evolved over the course of the pandemic. Despite more extensive availability, widespread uptake has failed to take root. Vaccine hesitancy remains a highly documented reason for delay and/or outright refusal of the vaccine; it has become a critical building block of the landscape that constitutes our understanding of the overall pandemic and its future evolution. Other studies have documented and explored COVID-19 specific hesitancy among various populations during the pandemic era. They have found that contributors to hesitancy can vary for patients with or without physical access to vaccines. Vulnerable populations have had mixed access to COVID-19 vaccines; among those with access to a vaccine, great variability persists as to how many people ultimately get one [11]. It is also known that individuals without health care providers, in general, are less likely to be vaccinated. Preliminary evidence on sources of vaccine hesitancy also suggests that political ideologies may play a larger-than-expected role in decisions to vaccinate, independent of access. One unique aspect of the COVID-19 vaccine is the shift in political identification of those expressing hesitancy. What had been described as a sentiment among the more left-leaning spectrum of political thought is now also popular among the right—a full pendulum swing [12].

Though non-COVID-19 vaccine requirements for work and school have been in place for many years, compliance has been less robust. This is evidenced by recent increases in incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) [7] and a resurgence of infections largely unseen since vaccination was ubiquitous. This extends outside of the US, where information about vaccinations—and hesitancy associated with them—is readily available through mass media globally, resulting in variability of vaccination adherence both for COVID-19 and other mandatory vaccinations, like MMR [13]. Current trends in non-compliance, resistance, and ongoing hesitancy towards vaccines in general foreshadow a similar struggle with the COVID-19 vaccine and infections. This presents a unique challenge for state and national vaccination campaigns, especially in locations where vaccines abound but enthusiasm and acceptance for them does not.

We sought to assess cohort-specific differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant Utah residents and Veterans using focus groups. Our goal was that these conversations on unique barriers and insights for each cohort can guide targeted messaging meant to increase the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns for states with similar populations.

Materials and methods

In 2021, the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) funded explorations of vaccine hesitancy to quickly assess the response to COVID-19 vaccination as part of larger effort to improve quality of care at VA hospitals across the nation. Understanding Veteran attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine, factors associated with hesitancy, and how attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions change over time was one of the primary goals of this effort with the ultimate goal of informing communication and implementation strategies to increase uptake of vaccines among Veterans [14]. Similarly, as part of the Utah Health & Economic Recovery Outreach (HERO) project, the University of Utah conducted “Vaccine Attitude Focus Groups” to contribute additional data that would inform COVID-19 decision-making in the state. The focus here was understanding potential differences in demographically distinct populations across the state. Given that we used the same focus group interview guide, data collection, and analysis procedures, we combined data from both efforts to assess barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake as well as differences between Veteran and non-Veteran responses. Participants across all groups were asked to discuss their attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine. Both Veterans and non-Veterans talked about whether they felt comfortable with the vaccine, potential risks of the vaccine, and benefits of the vaccine.

Recruitment and sampling

We identified Veterans nationally from 28 VA facilities with Veteran vaccination rates less than 4% as of February 1, 2021, according to the VHA Support Service Center’s (VSSC) “COVID Vaccine Surveillance Dashboard,” which uses data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), Occupational Health Recordkeeping System (OHRS), Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM), and the “Keep Me Informed” application to track COVID-19 vaccine administration to Veterans and employees at each VA facility. These facilities were chosen because they encompassed a relatively wide geographic distribution, low vaccination rates compared to other facilities at the time, and large proportions of underrepresented Veterans (e.g., African Americans, Latinx Americans, and Native Americans). Underrepresented Veterans were important to include because previous research suggests members of these groups have increased vaccine hesitancy and/or greater distrust in healthcare institutions [9,15]. Veterans with VA utilization at any of these facilities within the past 2 years, no long-term care facility stays within that period, valid mailing addresses within the 50 United States, English-speaking ability, and complete information on race and ethnicity per CDW data were included. Included Veterans received an invitation to complete a survey (which was included in the package) with questions assessing vaccination receipt/intentions. The survey also contained an option for Veteran participants to indicate interest in focus group participation. There were 10 Veteran focus groups in total, and they were organized into demographically distinct groups including women Veterans and degree of vaccine hesitancy.

Non-Veteran participants were recruited using letters and in-person contact to determine if they wished to participate in an initial survey. Survey participants were given the option to participate in a focus group within the survey; like Veterans, those who indicated interest were contacted through email or telephone call to recruit for the focus groups. School districts, school leadership, and healthcare systems were contacted to assist in distributing recruitment letters and information for healthcare workers, educators, and high school students. Long Term Care Facilities were also contacted to assist in the recruitment of staff and flyers were posted and distributed within these facilities. In total, there were 13 demographically distinct cohorts organized with a focus on educators, medical personnel (e.g., nurses, primary care physicians, long-term care facility staff), political affiliation (Republican), rural residency, Asian, Black, or African American, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and persons who identify as women.

Focus groups were conducted remotely via Zoom platform, with 1 facilitator; the average length of the focus groups was approximately 57 minutes. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. Verbal consent was acquired from participants beforehand. For Veteran focus groups, the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital IRB determined the present study as quality improvement. For non-Veteran focus groups, the University of Utah Internal Review Board (IRB) reviewed and determined the study to be exempt from the need for oversight.

Focus group guide

The interview guide included questions on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine, and sources of information on the COVID-19 vaccine. Women’s groups were asked a question about the COVID-19 vaccine and its potential association with infertility. The interview guide is available in S1 Appendix.

Data analysis

We used a rapid qualitative analysis process derived from the “Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) developed by J. Beebe [16] to help us develop a preliminary understanding of participant perspective and quickly develop qualitative themes. Domains were developed based on the questions asked in the focus group guide and were meant to capture themes—conceptually similar topics and ideas—discussed within the confines of those questions. Once domains were solidified, a team of two qualitatively trained analysts independently coded focus groups and met periodically to review, discuss, and adjudicate findings to establish reliability and accurate data capture. Domain summaries from all focus groups were placed into an excel spreadsheet matrix organized by domain.

Additional descriptive analyses were conducted to describe hesitancy status. Using a Likert scale, we went through each transcript and identified participants as vaccine-favorable, vaccine-unsure, and vaccine-hesitant using a scale of zero to four (0–4), with zero indicating full vaccine acceptance and favorability, one being probably vaccine favorable, two being vaccine-unsure, three indicating probably not vaccine favorable, and four being very vaccine-hesitant. Hesitancy status was primarily determined by 1) if the participant was vaccinated, 2) participant’s response to the question regarding attitude changed toward the COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the perceived risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccination status was also quantified for each participant, with zero being unvaccinated and one being vaccinated. Given that vaccine hesitancy [6] exists on the spectrum between high demand and full acceptance of a vaccine (i.e., 0) and complete rejection of all vaccines (i.e., 4) if a participant’s vaccination status was unknown (i.e., they did not give a direct answer throughout the transcript and we could not determine their vaccination status with 100% certainty), their vaccination status was recorded as missing and were given at least a hesitancy score of one. They were given a score of at least one, meaning they could not be a confirmed zero (i.e., no hesitancy), to account for the possibility that they were not vaccinated therefore indicating some level of hesitancy. If participants did not respond enough for analysts to record any vaccination status, they were dropped from hesitancy scoring analyses.

Results

A total of 36 focus groups took place with both Veterans and non-Veterans. Ten focus groups with an average of 5 participants per group (41.30% Female, 58.70% Male) took place March-July 2021 with US Veterans. More than half of Veterans in our sample were vaccinated (60.87%) and were representative of various groups: (17.39% Black/African American, 21.74% White/European American, and 19.57% Multiracial (Table 1)). Non-Veterans were engaged across 26 focus groups with participants ages 20–70, March-July 2021. 71.69% of non-Veterans represented were “White/European American” (Table 1).

Table 1. Participant demographics by Veteran status (N = 212).

Non-Veteran (n = 166)		Veteran (n = 46)
Characteristic	N (%)	Characteristic	N (%)
Gender		Gender
Female	111 (66.87)	Female	19 (41.30)
Male	50 (30.12)	Male	27 (58.70)
Non-binary & non-conforming^a	2 (1.20)	Missing	0 (0)
Missing	3 (1.81)
Vaccination status ^b		Vaccination status ^b
		Vaccinated	28 (60.87)
		Unvaccinated	18 (39.13)
Hispanic/Latinx		Ethnicity
Yes	19 (11.45)	Hispanic or Latinx	9 (19.57)
No	130 (78.31)	Not Hispanic or Latinx	37 (80.43)
Missing	17 (10.24)	Missing	0 (0)
Race		Race
Black	6 (3.61)	Black or African American	8 (17.39)
White	119 (71.69)	White or European American	10 (21.74)
Multiple races	13 (7.83)	Multiracial	9 (19.57)
Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian^a	11 (6.63)	Other^b	19 (41.30)
Asian^a	11 (6.63)	Missing	0 (0)
Native American^a	1 (0.60)
Latinx^a	1 (0.60)
Missing^a	4 (2.41)
Education		Education
High School or Less	12 (7.23)	High School or Less	4 (8.70)
Associates Degree/Trade School	13 (7.83)	Associate’s or technical degree	14 (30.43)
Bachelor’s Degree	70 (42.17)	Bachelor’s degree	11 (23.91)
Some college^a	26 (15.66)	Graduate degree^b	14 (30.43)
Master’s Degree^a	21 (12.65)	Prefer not to answer ^b	3 (6.52)
PhD/MD/Other Advanced Degree^a	17 (10.24)	Missing	0 (0)
Unknown/missing	7 (4.22)
Age ^a		Age ^a
19-20s	57 (34.34)
30s	39 (23.49)
40s	24 (14.46)
50s	23 (13.86)
60s	15 (9.04)
70+	6 (3.61)
Missing	2 (1.20)

Open in a new tab

N = Total number of participants; n = number of participants in designated sample; (%) = proportion of sample

^aThis category/question was only available in the non-Veteran demographic survey.

^bThis category/question was only available in the Veteran demographic survey.

Additional descriptive analyses on qualitative data allowed us to quantify vaccine hesitancy by Veteran status for 202 participants with non-missing data (44 Veterans, 158 non-Veterans) using a Likert scale. Most participants (70%) had been vaccinated at the time of the focus groups and out of those participants, a majority (53% Veterans; 73% non-Veterans) viewed the vaccine favorably (i.e., were non-hesitant). Vaccine hesitancy did not vary significantly by Veteran status (Fig 1). We also found that participants from the Black/African American community expressed favorability towards the COVID-19 vaccine, as did rural participants; vaccine hesitancy was especially pronounced in Pacific Islander participants.

Fig 1 — Distribution of vaccine hesitancy scores by Veteran status. N = 166 non-Veteran participants and N = 46 Veteran participants.

Focus group responses suggest participant attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine were shaped primarily by time and information. The following themes emerged as salient: vaccine attitude changes over time, were impacted by perceived vaccine benefits, risks, and differing sources of vaccine information. Recurring themes are summarized in Table 2 and supported by illustrative quotations in S2 Appendix.

Table 2. Recurring themes and sample quotes.

Theme	Sample quote(s)
Attitude changes over time
More hesitant	“I guess honestly it’s just, I’m not real sure about the whole thing with my attitude over time of everyone’s been pushing it so much that it makes it almost worrisome to me…. So it just when it almost seems like they’re forcing it so much that it makes you, it makes me worried to get it. And that’s the only reason that I haven’t at this point because of that. I have not, no problem getting it soon in the future things like that but because it’s being pushed so much it almost seems like, to me there needs to be more research on it first.” “I think I’m more convinced that I will not take it as time goes on.”
Less hesitant	“I was hesitant at first mainly because of misinformation from my family. But I think I was more just willing to get it after it was being offered to us but also because I interact with a lot of people that are in the medical field. And so I was able to get some information from them too. So I think that I was more willing to get it after that.” “I was actually, honestly, pretty convinced I was not going to receive the vaccine. And then after doing a bit of research and kind of just looking over some of the documentation on it, I felt like it was safe enough to go ahead and go forth with it.”
No change	“I don’t necessarily think my attitude has changed. From the very beginning, when vaccines had first come out, it was kind of a little bit of an excitement that we were getting closer, and then when people started using them and nobody grew a third eye, and the zombie apocalypse didn’t show up, we began to feel more and more confident in the science that these vaccines were safe and were working.” “For me, I’ve heard of some people who’s had good experiences and some who’ve had not-so-good experiences and have had bad side effects, but for me I’m still on the nay for the vaccine. Don’t want to do it just because I also feel like it’s just was something that was rushed too soon and there’s not enough evidence.”
Benefits
Feelings of safety/less fear	“Some of the benefits of the COVID vaccine is, I feel more at ease going home…. and there’s a lot of people who are just older who have weakened immune systems. And so, for me, I feel more comfortable going home because I know I’ve taken appropriate measures to keep [my grandparents] as safe as possible.” “I can go back out again instead of being locked inside a house. . .I was just happy to be able to get out and not being worried of that if I get the COVID it’s gonna kill me. That was my main concern. I can finally get outta the house.”
Return to normalcy	“The benefits would just be traveling and just kind of getting back to normal as fast as possible, or as soon as possible, getting to see your grandparents and anyone that’s in immediate danger of COVID. So it was nice and reassuring when the elderly got the vaccine and you could still hug people and just be around people. That was the good thing about it.” “I think a lot of people become a lot more relaxed after they got the vaccine. They tell me so. I mean it’s like, I think it helps with the anxiety…. But I see a lot of people who just after the second dose they feel a little freer. And they definitely do feel freer. Just moving around or even getting together with relatives finally…. I would say that’s a huge benefit for not just me but society.”
Prevention of severe illness/death	“I would think complete immunity from being, death if you will or being hospitalized under a ventilator. I wouldn’t wanna put my family nor myself through that. And the benefactor of being able to have some kind of shield of protection from a variant.” “I would say not 100%, especially not with the variants. So there is that little bit of a concern of getting it and maybe not knowing that I have it because I feel pretty certain that I would not become significantly ill.”
Risks
Unknown risks/lack of time or data	“I’m a pretty healthy person and I don’t have any underlying conditions. And so I just feel like, if I’m doing that, and then how I got sick and the side effects or the blood clot. I’m just feeling like why risk it, to have those type of effects, when I’m not sick already, you know what I mean? And so I think that’s what I’m scared of, is the long term, not knowing what will happen.” “For me, the biggest [risk] was—well, and this is new. It’s myocarditis when your heart muscles actually swell up. That was associated with the mRNA vaccines, which is what I got. Aside from that, it’s just the fear of the unknown. These are new. They were expedited. And so the long-term effects, nobody really can tell you.”
Mild side effects	“Worry about the side effects or how the effects of the shot, I guess I was feeling that you know if whatever reaction I have, I’ll have it. But I’m very physically strong internally so you know I think after the second injection I got maybe a 18, 20 hours of body aches and that’s sometimes what I get from the flu shot. So there was no, no difference for me.” “I would also say, for me, it would just be the short-term risks of—I just had heard some people getting quite sick for that day…. So that kind of made me a little hesitant because I just can’t afford to be sick. It’s just hard to be a mom and be sick. But obviously, I wanted to get the vaccine and I wanted to be vaccinated, so anyway, that was just my short-term risk.”
Potential long-term/serious side effects	“Personal risks, Ball’s palsy, there’s been a documented list of heart issues, breathing problems, and of course there’s a ton of lawsuits out there right now that the government’s trying to push away for every single one of these for unknown reasons.” “I’m concerned about long-term risk with fertility and, even in the moment, breastfeeding and how components of the vaccine may pass through to my infant. I guess another risk is heavy metal content and heavy metal detoxification in my body post vaccine. For me, the side effects of COVID for people in my age group seem a lot better than the vaccine side effects for people, and those are the risks that I made my decision based on.”
Sources of Information
Personal anecdotes	“Well definitely don’t trust the news. People, I’ve got some friends that are doctors and they give me some accurate information. And even they tell me not to get the vaccines. And of course with a special needs child I talk to their doctors constant, his doctors constantly. And they give me some accurate stuff about what they’re seeing out there.” “I try to stay abreast of trends and look at some of the Journals of Medicine, but I probably put my heaviest weight on just some of the anecdotal stories, although that’s not scientific, from people that I know that are hospital managers or nurses…. And every time I’ve talked to friends that are nurses and doctors or hospital administrators, the ones that they tell me that have died, that they can talk about, from COVID, they’ve all had some real bad pre-existing health conditions and/or they were eventually ended up on a ventilator. And I guess these folks could have been killed if they would have gotten pneumonia or the flu.”
Government-sponsored individuals/organizations	“The best information I get is from the VA. I get it through my email and they’re sending updates and something on my iPad and my phone updating you on what’s happening, what’s available, how it’s affecting people, and what they’re doing to make things better. So I think the best information I get is from the VA.” “Well, this might not be a popular answer, but I’m just going to say Dr. Fauci. I love the guy. He’s a great presence on television, and he was able to sort of keep his jobs through the whole end of the Trump era. But I don’t know, you know what? I mean, he’s kind of the face of the coronavirus in the United States. And he is a trustworthy guy. I like to listen to him. I like to hear what he says. And he seems to be kind of commonsense and not too radical one way or the other.”
Research, medical journals, doctors, etc…	“I use the CDC as kind of a jumping point because I think they do a pretty decent job of simplifying it. But then, I would kind of jump into the—when I was in school, I could read about the clinical trials, I could read the academic journals and stuff, and I could understand kind of how each vaccine worked. And I never really learned which one’s more effective…. But yeah, and just reading into kind of the offbeat cases where there’s extreme side effects, I also looked a lot into the few cases where there were blood clots and stuff like that.”
News outlets/media	“I was just going to say that, personally, with something that has become so politically charged, I don’t feel like I can trust any media outlet at this point. There are definitely some that I feel more inclined to trust, but I just feel that because, at the end of the day, they’re just trying to make money and have headlines. . .”

Open in a new tab

Vaccine attitude changes over time

The COVID-19 pandemic has varied in its impact on vaccine hesitant individuals. Some participants had been skeptical about the vaccine when it was first announced but became more favorable towards it over time. Others felt compelled after witnessing reductions in COVID-19 deaths after vaccine distribution. Participants within the medical field often favored vaccines from the beginning and did not change their attitudes over time. This favorability occurred more often in non-Veteran groups organized with a focus on medical personnel (e.g., primary care physicians, nurses, and long-term care facility staff). Others outside of the medical field were more inclined to be somewhat hesitant about receiving the vaccine at first but trended toward becoming less hesitant over time. For example, one participant shared that they were “…not going to receive the vaccine. And then after doing a bit of research and kind of just looking over some of the documentation on it, [they] felt like it was safe enough to go ahead…with it.” On the other hand, many participants (at least 10) did not exhibit a change in attitude over time; many of those who were vaccine-hesitant remained vaccine-hesitant and several (at least 5) who were vaccine-favorable remained vaccine-favorable. Others felt nervous about the vaccine and were unsure about getting it, but ultimately decided the vaccine was safer than the risk of contracting COVID-19. Non-Veteran participants reported more changes in attitudes over time though there were also non-Veteran participants that, like Veterans, did not experience changes in attitudes or beliefs over time.

Vaccine benefits

While many participants focused on the vaccine preventing severe illness and death from the virus, some talked about how the vaccine can provide relief and benefits through other means. Participants across all—including Veteran vaccine-hesitant—groups mentioned less fear, more peace of mind, safety, not having to wear masks regularly, and bringing back a sense of normalcy. Expressed pros of the COVID-19 vaccine include preventing death from COVID-19, the ability to go out and gather again, and feelings of safety: “…[B]enefits would just be traveling and just kind of getting back to normal as fast as possible, or as soon as possible, getting to see your grandparents and anyone that’s in immediate danger of COVID.” Vaccine-favorable participants often focused on how the vaccine would prevent one from becoming severely ill. While many did not believe it would fully protect them against the virus, they often believed it would decrease the chances of contracting COVID-19 and would prevent severe illness or death for themselves and immunocompromised members of the community.

Vaccine risks

Overall, participants who were more vaccine-favorable viewed the risks of the vaccine as minimal and temporary and were willing to take those risks to be protected from COVID-19. Those who were vaccine-hesitant or vaccine-unsure had concerns regarding potential side effects they heard about and would not feel comfortable taking those risks with the vaccine until they felt sufficient research had been done. Vaccine-favorable participants had some concerns about the vaccine but reported ultimately preferring the risks of the vaccine to the risks of COVID-19 if they contracted the virus. For some, becoming sick after the vaccine was more of a risk because of their life and work. Several non-Veteran females across focus groups expressed concerns over potential infertility as a risk of the COVID-19 vaccine. Many vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-unsure participants believed there could be unknown side effects of the vaccine due to “[the vaccine being] rushed too soon and there’s not enough evidence.” Blood clots and myocarditis (heart inflammation) were also mentioned as specific concerns.

Sources of information on vaccine

Overall, sources of information greatly varied across groups, though vaccine-hesitant individuals more often looked toward personal stories and distrusted large groups, such as government organizations (e.g., CDC, WHO, etc.), while vaccine-favorable individuals trusted more government organizations and doctors. Both vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-favorable individuals mentioned receiving information about how and where to get the vaccine. Others discussed how they did not think there was much information on the vaccine or that the information available was often contradictory and difficult to understand. Some believed information on the vaccine (e.g., how it was made) was not readily available to them or that much of the available information was contradictory. Others, particularly those who were vaccine-favorable, felt the information they had received was readily available or enough for them to get vaccinated. Participants reported receiving information from many different sources, ranging from individuals to institutions. Sources of information include government organizations (e.g., CDC, NIH, WHO), doctors, news sources, Dr. Fauci, academic journals, and people they personally know (e.g., friends, family). Participants reported hearing information about the side effects of the vaccine, the availability of the vaccine, and statistics regarding vaccine effectiveness from various sources, including place of employment. While some trusted the CDC and other government entities and officials, others did not, instead relying on personal doctors and relatives for information and harboring distrust for government and media. Further, many participants felt the politicization of the COVID-19 vaccine made it difficult for people to trust information presented to them, as did the pace with which information changed over time. Several participants felt they did not receive much information on the vaccine or that the information was not transparent; social media and news outlets were also described as untrustworthy. Others felt that the information skewed positive (i.e., vaccine benefits touted outweighed potential risks and side effects), fueling skepticism about the vaccine. Overall, information on the COVID-19 vaccine was scarce for some participants and it was difficult for many to find accurate and accessible information. Those who did receive information often had to seek it out or would hear about the side effects rather than other information about the vaccine. Vaccine-favorable participants believe a large pool of misinformation has contributed to vaccine hesitancy, and government officials could have done a better job addressing these problems early.

Political ideology

In addition to the salient themes presented above, we found political ideologies also appeared to play a role in COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among all participants. Many but not all participants from the vaccine-hesitant groups expressed ideas, opinions, and ideologies often associated with right-wing ideologies, such as disliking the current President of the United States and beliefs in medical freedom. These participants also trusted religious leaders and church members (n = 3) as sources of vaccine information, an information source not mentioned by any other focus group. Similarly, many but not all participants from the vaccine-favorable groups expressed ideas and opinions often associated with left-wing ideologies, such as a dislike for “right-wing propaganda” and a distrust of the former President of the United States.

Hesitancy and vaccination in a nationally representative Veteran sample

The historical requirement for vaccination among military service members in the US endow Veterans with a unique lived experience, irrespective of possible personally held hesitancy with respect to vaccines. For many, their Veteran status and benefits determined how soon they could access the vaccine through the VA. In our study, Veterans appeared more polarized, being either largely non-hesitant, or hesitant. In other words, Veterans were more likely to either express no misgivings because of similar already-existing historical requirements, or to vehemently oppose vaccination because they felt this was their opportunity to have a say where they were not able to before with previous vaccines. Generally, Veterans believe in the effectiveness and safety of previous vaccines. Most Veterans did not experience marked change in attitudes and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine over time. Veterans relied on different sources to receive what they deemed as trustworthy information on the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine-hesitant Veterans often relied more on conversations with others, personal experiences, and anecdotal stories for information. These Veterans distrusted media and government organizations like the CDC to provide accurate information on the vaccine. Untrusted sources for vaccine-favorable Veterans include media (especially politically leaning or influenced), politicians, social media. Vaccine-favorable Veterans had a mix of trustworthy and untrustworthy sources of information regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. When asked about risks of the vaccine, both vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-favorable Veterans expressed side effect concerns. Overall, vaccine-hesitant, and vaccine-unsure Veteran participants were concerned with potential risks of the vaccine that may not be known. Vaccine-favorable Veterans talked about the side effects of the vaccine as risks more often, though some did not believe there were any risks inherent in receiving the vaccine. Although most Veterans did not experience a change in attitude towards the vaccine, some expressed their attitudes could change if certain conditions were met, such as more proof of its effectiveness, safety, and more documentation on potential side effects.

Discussion

The VA has made COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna—available to Veterans, their spouses, caregivers, recipients of Civilian Health and Medical Program (CHAMPVA) benefits, and employees since Winter 2020 [17] The Utah health systems have similarly made COVID-19 vaccines accessible to patients. Veterans as servicemembers have historically been more likely to have received vaccinations and comply with mandated vaccinations, a well-known requirement for service [18]. Similarly, members of educational institutions have historically received required vaccines (e.g., (MMR), polio). Despite this and the relatively high number of participants reporting vaccination in our study, enthusiastic uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in all groups—Veterans, general patients, University staff, faculty, and students—appears to mirror that of the general US community: it is in the low and medium range with high prevalence of hesitancy and distrust [3,19]. This has and continues to make efforts aimed at mitigating the pandemic’s effect on all, but especially vulnerable populations, challenging [4]

Compared to the University of Utah project with a Utah-based sample, our Veteran sample had fewer unsure individuals and proportionally more Veterans who were staunchly against the vaccine and/or would never consider getting the vaccine. Previous military experience could have influenced some beliefs. For some, it is possible that existing negative military-specific theories, like the one suggesting multiple vaccines given to service personnel might contribute to Gulf War Syndrome [20] combined with those circulating in the community about COVID-19 [21] might be contributing to strong opposition and rejection of the vaccine among this group. Others expressed feeling more at ease with the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines, in general, have been a long-standing service requirement [18]. Though speculative, a tension between trust and autonomy could explain the greater hesitancy of Veterans than of non-Veterans. For example, for those who had no option but to accept all vaccinations due to service requirements, refusing vaccines now presents an opportunity to exercise autonomy and control otherwise not available during service time. Similarly, transgressions by the military—a government body—occurring during a service member’s tenure undoubtedly contribute to mistrust of the government and any of its efforts thereafter.

Despite ongoing public indication of vaccine safety with respect to family planning and pregnancy [22] some participants expressed concern about the vaccine causing infertility issues or interfering with family planning. Given the variability we found in patient sources of vaccine-related information, this trend was unsurprising, but an important indication of the potential ramifications misinformation may have on spurring hesitancy and reducing vaccine uptake. Government organizations and figures (e.g., CDC, Fauci, etc.) were not completely trusted, even by vaccine-favorable individuals. This suggests a concerted effort by these agencies at reparation of trust might be in order, especially as we continue to navigate an uncertain future with respect to COVID-19 variants.

Population attitudes about vaccines in general have always varied, with hesitancy reigning as a critical driver in ultimate vaccine rejection among those with more negative attitudes and perceptions [6]. This remains true for the COVID-19 vaccination and at least part of what has caused continued vaccine rejection over time [3,4] The delay in acceptance or outright refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine, despite its availability, has claimed many lives in the US during the pandemic. Despite the acknowledgement of this fact by many community members, the low vaccination rates in communities are an ongoing marker that hesitancy is here to stay. Continuing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is likely to affect all vaccine-related health efforts, in general, thereby exerting a larger and ongoing social influence with potentially deadly consequences.

Our work has several limitations. In this work, we compared remarks from a Utah-based sample to a nationally representative Veteran sample, which, given the diverse ideological perspectives represented across individual states, might not comprehensively capture differences in perceptions of COVID-19 or vaccine-related risk compared to non-Veterans from non-Utah states. Further, we acknowledge that Black or African American participants are more represented among our Veteran respondents. We are sensitive to the social inequities and pre-existing comorbidities in this group that has led to disproportionately negative outcomes and impacts due to COVID-19 and may consequentially affect their perception of vaccine trustworthiness, especially within the context of disease control by governmental organizations and experiences of trusted peers that may be relied upon as sources of vaccine information. Lastly, we were unable to obtain vaccination status and/or presentation of comorbidity (e.g., diabetes, autoimmune disorder) as an important confounder in the choice to obtain vaccination for every participant. This made our groups not identical and therefore limited our ability to perform quantitative comparisons of the population sample. Despite the inclusion of diverse perspectives and representation from demographically distinct cohorts, most groups had largely similar themes. Given these challenges and our unique study sample, the overall generalizability and extrapolation of our findings remains limited. Despite these limitations to our work, this study offers important insight unique barriers and insights vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons experience. Additional information about distinct cohorts can guide targeted messaging meant to increase the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns for states with similar populations; however, we believe this might also benefit efforts without similar populations—accumulating evidence across similar and dissimilar populations across the literature can only serve our understanding of hesitancy as a human experience and strengthen our response to it, not only regarding COVID-19, but to vaccines overall.

Conclusions

COVID-19 vaccine communication strategies in Veteran and non-Veteran communities should anticipate incongruous sources of information and explicitly target community differences in perceptions of risks and benefits associated with the vaccine to generate candid discussions and repair patient trust. We believe this could accelerate vaccine acceptance among hesitant and non-hesitant patients over time. These findings have the potential help the development of targeted messaging than could help patients become more open to the COVID-19 and other vaccines in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Focus group guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.6KB, docx)}

S2 Appendix. Illustrative quotes.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.4KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank Howard Gordon, MD and Aaron Scherer, PhD’s contributions to the focus group guide.

Data Availability

Complete interview data cannot be shared publicly because researchers assured all interview participants that their full interview responses would remain confidential, and that only data in aggregate or unidentifiable sample quotes would be included in publications and publicly shared materials related to this work. Limited data are available upon reasonable request through the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (IRB) at IRB@hsc.utah.edu or 801-581-3655.

Funding Statement

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Combating Antimicrobial Resistance through Rapid Implementation of Available Guidelines and Evidence (CARRIAGE) II QUERI Program and its partners at the National VA Program Offices in Hines, Illinois and Salt Lake City, Utah. It was also supported in part by the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytics Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation (CIN 13-414) at VA Salt Lake City, Utah. SCA, MS, and JN received funding from the State of Utah (https://www.utah.gov/) under contract number AR3473 to collect the non-VA data analyzed in this manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analyses, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Ahmad FB, Anderson RN. The Leading Causes of Death in the US for 2020. JAMA. 2021;325: 1829–1830. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Zimmerman S, Gaugler JE, Nkimbeng M. COVID-19 Vaccination and Implementation Science: How One Can Benefit the Other. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22: 2223–2224. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.09.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Tram KH, Saeed S, Bradley C, Fox B, Eshun-Wilson I, Mody A, et al. Deliberation, Dissent, and Distrust: Understanding distinct drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2021; ciab633. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Al‐Amer R, Maneze D, Everett B, Montayre J, Villarosa AR, Dwekat E, et al. COVID‐19 vaccination intention in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2021. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Jha AK, Wright SM, Perlin JB. Performance measures, vaccinations, and pneumonia rates among high-risk patients in Veterans Administration health care. Am J Public Health. 2007;97: 2167–2172. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.099440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33: 4161–4164. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Patel MK, Goodson JL, Alexander JP Jr, Kretsinger K, Sodha S V, Steulet C, et al. Progress toward regional measles elimination—worldwide, 2000–2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;69: 1700. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Sallam M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9: 160. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Razai MS, Osama T, McKechnie DGJ, Majeed A. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups. bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: A systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;40: 101113. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Wouters OJ, Shadlen KC, Salcher-Konrad M, Pollard AJ, Larson HJ, Teerawattananon Y, et al. Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment. The Lancet. 2021. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00306-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Gerretsen P, Kim J, Caravaggio F, Quilty L, Sanches M, Wells S, et al. Individual determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. PLoS One. 2021;16: e0258462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Thompson S, Meyer JC, Burnett RJ, Campbell SM. Mitigating Vaccine Hesitancy and Building Trust to Prevent Future Measles Outbreaks in England. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11: 288. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Affairs UD of V. Health Services Research & Development: COVID-19 Highlights. 2021. Available: https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/covid-19/highlights.cfm#031921
15.Ordaz-Johnson OH, Croff RL, Robinson LD, Shea SA, Bowles NP. More than a statistic: a qualitative study of COVID-19 treatment and prevention optimization for Black Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35: 3750–3752. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06259-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Beebe J. Rapid assessment process: An introduction. Rowman Altamira; 2001. [Google Scholar]
17.COVID-19 vaccines at VA. [cited 12 Dec 2021]. Available: https://www.va.gov/health-care/covid-19-vaccine/.
18.O’Maonaigh HC, Fisseha S, Thaul S, Lemon SM. Protecting our forces: improving vaccine acquisition and availability in the US military. 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Kirzinger, Ashley; Kearny, Audrey; Hamel, Liz; Brodie M. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: Early Omicron Update. In: Kaiser Family Foundation [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2 Jan 2022]. Available: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-early-omicron-update/.
20.Shaheen S. Shots in the desert and Gulf war syndrome: Evidence that multiple vaccinations during deployment are to blame is inconclusive. Bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2000. pp. 1351–1352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Wilson SL, Wiysonge C. Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5: e004206. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Luxi N, Giovanazzi A, Capuano A, Crisafulli S, Cutroneo PM, Fantini MP, et al. COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety. Drug Saf. 2021/11/05. 2021;44: 1247–1269. doi: 10.1007/s40264-021-01131-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290540.r001

Decision Letter 0

Andrea Cioffi

28 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-05407Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant personsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Naranjo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Cioffi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and The University of Utah. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments:

The article has a discreet basis on which you can apply further improvements. However, it is necessary to implement various sections of the Manuscript; in consideration of the chosen topic, it will be appropriate to expand the discussions and comparison with the international literature already published on the topic.

Please note that citations recommended by reviewers may be included if you believe that they add value to your manuscript. If you do not believe that such citations would benefit your manuscript, then please provide explanation(s) in your response letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Diana Naranjo et al. report the results of a qualitative study on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The study is relevant as evidence is needed for adapting risk communication strategies as COVID-19 response is transitioning from emergency to control. The paper is overall well written. However some points need clarifications/improvements.

L59-61 are about vaccine hesitancy being low both in low and high income countries, and remaining a challenge as the omicron subvariants continue to emerge. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy has indeed been equally high both in low and high income countries as mentioned in ref(7). However this situation dates back October-November 2020. Study participants were enrolled later in 2021, and omicron variants emerged nearly a year after enrollment. By the time the omicron variant emerged, vaccine hesitancy had already evolved overtime in the US and most high income countries. It would be better to rephrase this sentence.

Throughout the results and discussion parts, veterans (from nearly country representative VAs) are compared to non-veterans from Utah. The latter may have perceived differently COVID-19 risk or vaccines related risk and benefits compared to non-veterans from other states where veteran originated. Also the distributions of ethnicity between both groups are different. E.g. Participants with black ethnicity are over represented among veterans compared to non-veterans where white participants are the most represented. Persons with black ethnicity have been heavily affected by COVID-19 given their pre-existing comorbidities and/or socio-economic status. This might positively or negatively affect their perception of COVID-19 risk resulting in either high acceptance rates or high hesitancy (e.g. mistrust in government) in a context of mistrust in official disease control bodies and important reliance on peers as trusted source of information. This weakness is not explicitly mentioned nor is its impact on the findings well addressed in the discussion.

L310-315. The authors mention several weaknesses of their study, preventing the generalizability and extrapolation of their findings. Yet in L318-320, their recommendations target all veteran and non-veterans communities. Also, the authors did not mention any study strength, making the reader question the relevancy of their findings. Could they elaborate more on this issue? Clearly showing the value added of their findings in the actual context of transition from COVID-19 emergency response to management and control.

Reviewer #2: The subject of the article - although of great interest - has already been extensively addressed in the literature in recent years. I think the study is good overall, but it requires a substantial review. In addition, it is essential that the authors discuss in a more original way the objectives and results of the study, with a greater critical spirit. This is essential for the article to be considered sufficiently innovative.

In the introduction the authors could focus more on the objectives and perspectives of their study. As rightly mentioned by the authors, vaccination hesitation is a problem that also affects other pediatric infectious diseases (MMR), whose incidence is increasing dramatically in recent years. It would be interesting and original if the authors emphasized the possible correlations between these two events.

In fact on the one hand, the problems related to the COVID-19 have reduced the availability of vaccines against other infectious diseases, especially in developing countries

(compare in this regard the article: Cioffi A, Cecannecchia C. Measles outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic: medico-legal and public health implications. Cad Saude Publica. 2022 Jul 25;38(7):e00095122. doi: 10.1590/0102-311XEN095122);

on the other hand, the COVID-19 - accomplice also the spread and easy availability of pandemic information through the mass media - has made adherence to the vaccine discretionary with the risk that this trend will spread to other mandatory vaccinations (or perhaps the risk is that it reinforces an existing trend?).

I believe that, for example, arguing these issues (even in discussions, if necessary) can enrich the article.

I have my doubts about the methods: why did the authors not decide to submit the same questionnaire to the two groups? Some information, as noted, is only available in one of the two groups (eg vaccination status and age). This makes the two groups difficult to compare and does not allow to analyze statistically independent variables that may have affected the results.

I propose to use the same definition for the themes in Table 2 and the following paragraphs.

If Tab 2 can be an enrichment of the article, I think the arguments in the respective paragraphs are vague. For example, the authors write (line 195) "many participants did not exhibit a change in attitude over time; many of those who were vaccine-hesitant remained favorable vaccine-hesitant and several 197 who were vaccine-remained vaccine-favorable". How many? Even in the following paragraphs there are never quantitative references. Of course, I do not mean that the authors should have entered the number every time, but I think that, where there is a big difference between the two groups, the number is indispensable.

Finally, I believe that the discussions should be more expanded and argued. Although they contain interesting content, they are rather hasty. For example (but it is only one) the reasons that could explain the greater vaccination hesitation of veterans than non-veterans should be expanded.

I hope that the authors will not be discouraged by my proposed revision. On the contrary, I hope that my suggestions can be useful to make the article more appealing and original.

Finally, I thank the Editor. I am very grateful for the opportunity to review the article.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290540.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Jul 2023

REVIEWER #1

1. Diana Naranjo et al. report the results of a qualitative study on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The study is relevant as evidence is needed for adapting risk communication strategies as COVID-19 response is transitioning from emergency to control. The paper is overall well written. However some points need clarifications/improvements.

Response: Thank you for these comments and for the positive feedback on the overall quality of the writing.

2. L59-61 are about vaccine hesitancy being low both in low and high income countries, and remaining a challenge as the omicron subvariants continue to emerge. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy has indeed been equally high both in low and high income countries as mentioned in ref(7). However this situation dates back October-November 2020. Study participants were enrolled later in 2021, and omicron variants emerged nearly a year after enrollment. By the time the omicron variant emerged, vaccine hesitancy had already evolved overtime in the US and most high income countries. It would be better to rephrase this sentence.

Response: Thank you for this comment. Our original statement implied that hesitancy was equally prevalent in both low and high-income countries; our comment on the omicron variant was meant to elevate our work’s importance; we have rephrased this sentence to better reflect the evolution of vaccine hesitancy since we collected our data and removed reference to the omicron variant. This section now reads: “Indeed, vaccine hesitancy itself continues to evolve and extend its influence on other infectious diseases such as measles, which had been considered close to eradication in the US but is instead seeing remarkable increase in incidence (7). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy remains a public health challenge—as disease spreads, so too, it seems, does hesitancy toward vaccination (9–11).”

3. Throughout the results and discussion parts, veterans (from nearly country representative VAs) are compared to non-veterans from Utah. The latter may have perceived differently COVID-19 risk or vaccines related risk and benefits compared to non-veterans from other states where veteran originated. Also the distributions of ethnicity between both groups are different. E.g. Participants with black ethnicity are over represented among veterans compared to non-veterans where white participants are the most represented. Persons with black ethnicity have been heavily affected by COVID-19 given their pre-existing comorbidities and/or socio-economic status. This might positively or negatively affect their perception of COVID-19 risk resulting in either high acceptance rates or high hesitancy (e.g. mistrust in government) in a context of mistrust in official disease control bodies and important reliance on peers as trusted source of information. This weakness is not explicitly mentioned nor is its impact on the findings well addressed in the discussion.

Response: We have expanded our discussion to more explicitly mention the limitations in our comparisons due to the distribution of ethnicity of both groups being different and how this may impact their perceptions on COVID-19 risk or vaccines. It now reads: “Our work has several limitations. In this work, we compared remarks from a Utah-based sample to a nationally representative Veteran sample, which, given the diverse ideological perspectives represented across individual states, might not comprehensively capture differences in perceptions of COVID-19 or vaccine-related risk compared to non-Veterans from non-Utah states. Further, we acknowledge that Black or African American participants are more represented among our Veteran respondents. We are sensitive to the social inequities and pre-existing comorbidities in this group that has led to disproportionately negative outcomes and impacts due to COVID-19 and may consequentially affect their perception of vaccine trustworthiness, especially within the context of disease control by governmental organizations and experiences of trusted peers that may be relied upon as sources of vaccine information.” (pp.10-11)

4. L310-315. The authors mention several weaknesses of their study, preventing the generalizability and extrapolation of their findings. Yet in L318-320, their recommendations target all veteran and non-veterans communities. Also, the authors did not mention any study strength, making the reader question the relevancy of their findings. Could they elaborate more on this issue? Clearly showing the value added of their findings in the actual context of transition from COVID-19 emergency response to management and control.

Response: We have added a statement describing the strengths of our findings. We also describe how, despite having a unique study sample, our findings might still be relevant to other groups outside of those identical to our own. It now reads: “Despite these limitations to our work, this study offers important insight to unique barriers and insights about vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons experience. Additional information about distinct cohorts can guide targeted messaging meant to increase the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns for states with similar populations; however, we believe this might also benefit efforts without similar populations—accumulating evidence across similar and dissimilar populations across the literature can only serve our understanding of hesitancy as a human experience and strengthen our response to it not only regarding COVID-19 but to vaccines overall.” (pp.11)

REVIEWER #2

1. The subject of the article - although of great interest - has already been extensively addressed in the literature in recent years. I think the study is good overall, but it requires a substantial review. In addition, it is essential that the authors discuss in a more original way the objectives and results of the study, with a greater critical spirit. This is essential for the article to be considered sufficiently innovative. In the introduction the authors could focus more on the objectives and perspectives of their study. As rightly mentioned by the authors, vaccination hesitation is a problem that also affects other pediatric infectious diseases (MMR), whose incidence is increasing dramatically in recent years. It would be interesting and original if the authors emphasized the possible correlations between these two events. In fact on the one hand, the problems related to the COVID-19 have reduced the availability of vaccines against other infectious diseases, especially in developing countries (compare in this regard the article: Cioffi A, Cecannecchia C. Measles outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic: medico-legal and public health implications. Cad Saude Publica. 2022 Jul 25;38(7):e00095122. doi: 10.1590/0102-311XEN095122); on the other hand, the COVID-19 - accomplice also the spread and easy availability of pandemic information through the mass media - has made adherence to the vaccine discretionary with the risk that this trend will spread to other mandatory vaccinations (or perhaps the risk is that it reinforces an existing trend?).

(compare in this regard the article: Thompson S, Meyer JC, Burnett RJ, Campbell SM. Mitigating Vaccine Hesitancy and Building Trust to Prevent Future Measles Outbreaks in England. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Jan 28;11(2):288. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020288).I believe that, for example, arguing these issues (even in discussions, if necessary) can enrich the article.

Response: Thank you for bringing these two articles to our attention. We have included them in our manuscript to help illustrate the points suggested by the reviewer both in the introduction (pp.3) and in the discussion (pp.10).

2. I have my doubts about the methods: why did the authors not decide to submit the same questionnaire to the two groups? Some information, as noted, is only available in one of the two groups (e.g., vaccination status and age). This makes the two groups difficult to compare and does not allow to analyze statistically independent variables that may have affected the results.

Response: Thank you for pointing out that this was not made sufficiently clear in our original draft. We did use the same questionnaire for both groups. In fact, it was this shared questionnaire that made the comparison of study outcomes possible. What was not identical was the types of demographic questions asked (not part of the qualitative interview guide shared by both groups). We agree with the reviewer that not having fully comparable groups in terms of information available about vaccination status and age is lamentable and does not allow for quantitative comparisons of the population sample. We have expanded our limitations section to explicitly mention this weakness in our data collection. It now reads:” Lastly, we were unable to obtain vaccination status and/or presentation of comorbidity (e.g., diabetes, autoimmune disorder) as an important confounder in the choice to obtain vaccination for every participant. This made our groups not identical and therefore limited our ability to perform quantitative comparisons of the population sample.”

3. I propose to use the same definition for the themes in Table 2 and the following paragraphs. If Tab 2 can be an enrichment of the article, I think the arguments in the respective paragraphs are vague. For example, the authors write (line 195) "many participants did not exhibit a change in attitude over time; many of those who were vaccine-hesitant remained favorable vaccine-hesitant and several 197 who were vaccine-remained vaccine-favorable". How many? Even in the following paragraphs there are never quantitative references. Of course, I do not mean that the authors should have entered the number every time, but I think that, where there is a big difference between the two groups, the number is indispensable.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We intended for the paragraphs following the table to serve as more detailed summaries of what is presented in the table. We have included numerical references where appropriate at the suggestion of the reviewer (pp.8).

4. Finally, I believe that the discussions should be more expanded and argued. Although they contain interesting content, they are rather hasty. For example (but it is only one) the reasons that could explain the greater vaccination hesitation of veterans than non-veterans should be expanded.

Response: We have expanded the discussion to include a discussion about the vaccination hesitancy in Veterans. It now reads: “Though speculative, a tension between trust and autonomy could explain the greater hesitancy of Veterans than of non-Veterans. For example, for those who had no option but to accept all vaccinations due to service requirements, refusing vaccines now presents an opportunity to exercise autonomy and control otherwise not available during service time. Similarly, transgressions by the military—a government body—occurring during a service member’s tenure undoubtedly contribute to mistrust of the government and any of its efforts thereafter.” (pp.10).

5. I hope that the authors will not be discouraged by my proposed revision. On the contrary, I hope that my suggestions can be useful to make the article more appealing and original. Finally, I thank the Editor. I am very grateful for the opportunity to review the article.

Response: We agree that the reviewer’s suggestions were helpful in improving the manuscript.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290540.r003

Decision Letter 1

Andrea Cioffi

11 Aug 2023

Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons

PONE-D-23-05407R1

Dear Dr. Naranjo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Cioffi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I appreciate that the authors implemented the article and found my suggestions inspiring. Personally I would have expanded the introduction and discussion further to allows the reader to get more into the issue; anyway, after the review, the content offers more original insights. I recognize the value of the article and further changes that I could propose risk distorting the content and style chosen by the authors. Therefore, I believe that the article so revised could be suitable for publication.

Thanks again to the Editor for the trust.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290540.r004

Acceptance letter

Andrea Cioffi

29 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-05407R1

Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons

Dear Dr. Naranjo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Cioffi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Appendix. Focus group guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.6KB, docx)}

S2 Appendix. Illustrative quotes.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0290540.ref001] 1.Ahmad FB, Anderson RN. The Leading Causes of Death in the US for 2020. JAMA. 2021;325: 1829–1830. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref002] 2.Zimmerman S, Gaugler JE, Nkimbeng M. COVID-19 Vaccination and Implementation Science: How One Can Benefit the Other. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22: 2223–2224. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.09.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref003] 3.Tram KH, Saeed S, Bradley C, Fox B, Eshun-Wilson I, Mody A, et al. Deliberation, Dissent, and Distrust: Understanding distinct drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2021; ciab633. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref004] 4.Al‐Amer R, Maneze D, Everett B, Montayre J, Villarosa AR, Dwekat E, et al. COVID‐19 vaccination intention in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2021. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref005] 5.Jha AK, Wright SM, Perlin JB. Performance measures, vaccinations, and pneumonia rates among high-risk patients in Veterans Administration health care. Am J Public Health. 2007;97: 2167–2172. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.099440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref006] 6.MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33: 4161–4164. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref007] 7.Patel MK, Goodson JL, Alexander JP Jr, Kretsinger K, Sodha S V, Steulet C, et al. Progress toward regional measles elimination—worldwide, 2000–2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;69: 1700. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref008] 8.Sallam M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9: 160. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref009] 9.Razai MS, Osama T, McKechnie DGJ, Majeed A. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups. bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref010] 10.Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: A systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;40: 101113. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref011] 11.Wouters OJ, Shadlen KC, Salcher-Konrad M, Pollard AJ, Larson HJ, Teerawattananon Y, et al. Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment. The Lancet. 2021. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00306-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref012] 12.Gerretsen P, Kim J, Caravaggio F, Quilty L, Sanches M, Wells S, et al. Individual determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. PLoS One. 2021;16: e0258462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref013] 13.Thompson S, Meyer JC, Burnett RJ, Campbell SM. Mitigating Vaccine Hesitancy and Building Trust to Prevent Future Measles Outbreaks in England. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11: 288. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref014] 14.Affairs UD of V. Health Services Research & Development: COVID-19 Highlights. 2021. Available: https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/covid-19/highlights.cfm#031921

[pone.0290540.ref015] 15.Ordaz-Johnson OH, Croff RL, Robinson LD, Shea SA, Bowles NP. More than a statistic: a qualitative study of COVID-19 treatment and prevention optimization for Black Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35: 3750–3752. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06259-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref016] 16.Beebe J. Rapid assessment process: An introduction. Rowman Altamira; 2001. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref017] 17.COVID-19 vaccines at VA. [cited 12 Dec 2021]. Available: https://www.va.gov/health-care/covid-19-vaccine/.

[pone.0290540.ref018] 18.O’Maonaigh HC, Fisseha S, Thaul S, Lemon SM. Protecting our forces: improving vaccine acquisition and availability in the US military. 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref019] 19.Kirzinger, Ashley; Kearny, Audrey; Hamel, Liz; Brodie M. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: Early Omicron Update. In: Kaiser Family Foundation [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2 Jan 2022]. Available: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-early-omicron-update/.

[pone.0290540.ref020] 20.Shaheen S. Shots in the desert and Gulf war syndrome: Evidence that multiple vaccinations during deployment are to blame is inconclusive. Bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2000. pp. 1351–1352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref021] 21.Wilson SL, Wiysonge C. Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5: e004206. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290540.ref022] 22.Luxi N, Giovanazzi A, Capuano A, Crisafulli S, Cutroneo PM, Fantini MP, et al. COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety. Drug Saf. 2021/11/05. 2021;44: 1247–1269. doi: 10.1007/s40264-021-01131-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Differences in perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination between vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant persons

Diana Naranjo

Elisabeth Kimball

Jeanette Nelson

Matthew Samore

Stephen C Alder

Kevin Stroupe

Charlesnika T Evans

Frances M Weaver

Cara Ray

Ibuola Kale

Patrick O Galyean

Susan Zickmund

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Recruitment and sampling

Focus group guide

Data analysis

Results

Table 1. Participant demographics by Veteran status (N = 212).

Fig 1. Veteran vs. non-Veteran vaccine hesitancy.

Table 2. Recurring themes and sample quotes.

Vaccine attitude changes over time

Vaccine benefits

Vaccine risks

Sources of information on vaccine

Political ideology

Hesitancy and vaccination in a nationally representative Veteran sample

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Andrea Cioffi

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Andrea Cioffi

Roles

Acceptance letter

Andrea Cioffi

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases