RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Confidence in childhood vaccination is high in Norway and the Norwegian Childhood Immunization Programme (NCIP) achieves high overall coverage rates. However, lower coverage has been observed for some immigrant groups, including Polish immigrants who represent the largest immigrant group in Norway. Anti-vaccine sentiments and increased refusal of mandatory childhood vaccination has been on the rise in Poland, but it is unknown whether such attitudes also apply to Polish immigrants in Norway, as they experience a different vaccination policy and perhaps also different attitudes to vaccines. This qualitative study aims to explore attitudes towards childhood vaccination in Norway among Polish immigrants. METHODS: We interviewed 15 Polish parents living in Norway in 2022. We recruited the participants by purposive sampling and analyzed the interviews by reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: views of childhood vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, and differences in childhood vaccination between Poland and Norway. Overall, the participants favored childhood vaccination and viewed most of the vaccines included in the NCIP as safe and reliable. Human papilloma virus, meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines were declined by some of the parents. Comparisons of childhood vaccination in Poland and Norway was evident in many of the interviews, especially among parents whose children had received vaccines in both countries. The participants were well acquainted with the NCIP, favored voluntary childhood vaccination, and the majority expressed a high level of trust in Norwegian health authorities. CONCLUSIONS: Polish immigrants to Norway generally expressed positive views about childhood vaccination. Non-vaccination was related to lack of knowledge and/or unfamiliarity with certain vaccines and not with anti-vaccine sentiments or conspiracy theories. The study highlights how parents' knowledge, in combination with norms and trends from both birth country and country of residence, influence parents' decision making about vaccination.
Asunto(s)
Emigrantes e Inmigrantes , Padres , Investigación Cualitativa , Vacunación , Humanos , Noruega , Polonia/etnología , Emigrantes e Inmigrantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Emigrantes e Inmigrantes/psicología , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Padres/psicología , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación/psicología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vacilación a la Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacilación a la Vacunación/psicología , Niño , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Entrevistas como Asunto , Preescolar , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Childhood Immunization Program maintains a high national coverage of 95-97% in the most recent years. Whether there are subgroups with lower uptake is less studied. This study examines pertussis and measles vaccination coverage among six immigrant groups in Norway. These vaccines are normally administered as part of different combination vaccines and their coverage rate indicate the national vaccination coverage against a range of additional infections. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian National Population Register were linked at individual level with vaccination data from the Norwegian Immunisation Registry. The final sample consisted of 53,052 children born during 2000-2018 in Norway to parents who were born in Iraq, Lithuania, Pakistan, Poland, Somalia, or Vietnam. Vaccination coverage was measured at 2-years of age. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to estimate the relationship between vaccinations status, year of birth, gender, mother's length of residency in Norway, and area of residence. RESULTS: At two years of age, the majority of the children were vaccinated. Coverage among the groups varied at, above, and below the national average for the two vaccines. For most of the years examined, children born by parents from Lithuania, Poland, and Somalia had lower coverage for the measles vaccine (range 81-84% in 2020) than the national level (97% in 2020). Children born by parents from the Eastern-European countries also had lower coverage than the national level for the pertussis vaccine (range 87-89% in 2020). DISCUSSION: This study illustrates how subgroups with lower vaccination coverage may exists within a well-established vaccination program with high national coverages. Differences in coverage were found for both vaccines, but the differences were more pronounced for the measles vaccine. The high vaccination coverage in Norway provides indirect protection through herd immunity for unvaccinated individuals, however, the lower vaccination coverage in some immigrant groups is a concern.
Asunto(s)
Emigrantes e Inmigrantes , Vacunación , Niño , Humanos , Lactante , Padres , Vacuna Antisarampión , NoruegaRESUMEN
AIMS: To explore public confidence in influenza vaccination through the use of attitudinal indicators, and study whether educational attainment is related to attitudes towards influenza vaccination. METHODS: Confidence in influenza vaccination was measured with three questions adapted from the Vaccine Confidence Project. These questions have been included in four study years of a Norwegian nationally representative telephone survey that cover influenza seasons 2016/17, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22. Over these four years, a total of 8 436 individuals aged 18-79 years responded to the survey and are included in the analysis. Risk differences (RDs) with 95 % confidence intervals were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: Influenza vaccine confidence increased over time, with approximately 80 % of the general population expressing trust in the vaccine in the 2021/22 season. There was a tendency towards higher confidence in the oldest age group (65-79 years). Moreover, confidence increased with increasing educational attainment. The proportion of participants who agreed that influenza vaccine is compatible with their basic values was close to 20 percentage points lower among those with only compulsory education than among those with higher education at graduate level, RD = -18.4 % (95 % CI -21.4 % to -15.5 %). Educational attainment was consistently associated with influenza vaccine confidence in all seasons, among risk groups 18-64 years, and among health care workers. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increase in confidence in influenza vaccination over the seasons examined in the study. However, the increase has not been equal in all groups and there is a clear educational gradient in influenza vaccine confidence. These findings indicate that despite efforts to increase influenza coverage over several years, the implemented measures have failed to reach all parts of the population.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Humanos , Vacunación , Noruega , Escolaridad , Estaciones del AñoRESUMEN
Background: Support for the COVID-19 vaccination programme has been high in Norway throughout the pandemic, but previous studies have observed variation based on country of birth. If the unvaccinated are young and healthy, the risk and consequences for the individual and for the health service will be less than if the unvaccinated have underlying risk of severe COVID-19. The purpose of the study was to examine the degree to which vaccination coverage varied by country of birth in persons with and without underlying risk. Material and method: We used the Norwegian emergency preparedness register Beredt C19 to link vaccination coverage to demographic and health variables. Using Poisson regression, we estimated the relative likelihood of being vaccinated for foreign-born individuals compared to Norwegian-born individuals, for those with and without underlying risk of severe COVID-19, adjusted for sex, age, level of education, household income and county. Results: The study population was 4 304 249, which included 768 312 people who were born outside Norway. The vaccination coverage varied in total from 47 to 94 % between countries of birth. The variation between countries of birth was less in the group with underlying risk, ranging from 63 to 96 %. The difference between persons with and without an underlying risk was most pronounced among those born in Poland (RR 0.71 and 0.55) and Lithuania (RR 0.69 and 0.61). In absolute numbers, this corresponded to a difference in relative risk of 0.16 and 0.08, respectively. Interpretation: Higher vaccination coverage against COVID-19 among persons with an underlying risk means that the variation between countries of birth may have had less serious implications in terms of severe clinical course and healthcare needs than previously assumed.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Planificación en Desastres , Humanos , Cobertura de Vacunación , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , VacunaciónRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Lower COVID-19 vaccination rates have been observed among some adult immigrant populations in Norway, and there appears to be an association with sociodemographic factors. However, knowledge is lacking on the distribution of vaccination rates and role of sociodemographic factors among adolescents. This study aims to describe COVID-19 vaccination rates among adolescents according to immigrant background, household income, and parental education. METHODS: In this nationwide registry study, we analyzed individual-level data on adolescents (12-17 years) from the Norwegian Emergency preparedness register for COVID-19 until September 15th, 2022. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for receiving at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose by country background, household income and parental education, using Poisson regression, adjusting for age, sex, and county. RESULTS: The sample comprised 384,815 adolescents. Foreign-born and Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents, had lower vaccination rates (57 % and 58 %) compared to adolescents with at least one Norwegian-born parent (84 %). Vaccination rates by country background varied from 88 % (Vietnam) to 31 % (Russia). Variation and associations by country background, household income, and parental education were greater among 12-15-year-olds than 16-17-year-olds. Household income and parental education were positively associated with vaccination. Compared to the lowest income and education category, IRRs for household income ranged from 1.07 (95 % CI 1.06-1.09) to 1.31 (95 % CI 1.29-1.33) among 12-15-year-olds, and 1.06 (95 % CI 1.04-1.07) to 1.17 (95 % CI 1.15-1.18) among 16-17-year-olds. For parental education, from IRR 1.08 (95 % CI 1.06-1.09) to 1.18 (95 % CI 1.17-1.20) among 12-15-year-olds, and 1.05 (95 % CI 1.04-1.07) to 1.09 (95 % CI 1.07-1.10) among 16-17-year-olds. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination rates varied by immigrant background and age group, with lower rates especially among adolescents with background from Eastern Europe and among younger adolescents. Household income and parental education were positively associated with vaccination rates. Our results may help target measures to increase vaccination rates among adolescents.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Emigrantes e Inmigrantes , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Factores Sociodemográficos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunación , Noruega/epidemiología , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been an important measure in dealing with the pandemic. In Norway, vaccination coverage has been lower in several immigrant groups than in the general population. The aim of this study was to investigate which factors may have played a role in the low uptake rate among immigrants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Eighty-eight semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted remotely in the period March to June 2021. The interviewees consisted of 49 women and 39 men aged 19-78, from ten different countries. In a thematic analysis (NVivo-12), four main categories relating to vaccine hesitancy emerged: system-based factors, factors linked to personal conviction, factors linked to fear and factors linked to trust. RESULTS: Although many of the informants were willing to take the vaccine, several expressed vaccine hesitancy. Lack of evidence-based information and fear of adverse effects were cited as reasons. Vaccine hesitancy was also linked to misinformation and conspiracy theories. Some had no confidence in the vaccination programme or the efficacy of the vaccine. INTERPRETATION: The study revealed that vaccine hesitancy among immigrants was due to a range of factors. The main reasons included lack of information, low health literacy, insufficient knowledge of how the vaccine works, and little trust in the authorities.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Emigrantes e Inmigrantes , Vacunas , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Incertidumbre , VacunaciónRESUMEN
AIMS: To examine influenza vaccination coverage among risk groups (RG) and health care workers (HCW), and study social and demographic patterns of vaccination coverage over time. METHODS: Vaccination coverage was estimated by self-report in a nationally representative telephone survey among 14919 individuals aged 18-79 years over seven influenza seasons from 2014/15 to 2020/21. We explored whether belonging to an influenza RG (being >=65 years of age and/or having >=1 medical risk factor), being a HCW or educational attainment was associated with vaccination status using logistic regression. RESULTS: Vaccination coverage increased from 27 % to 66 % among individuals 65-79 years, from 13 % to 33 % among individuals 18-64 years with >=1 risk factor, and from 9 % to 51 % among HCWs during the study period. Being older, having a risk factor or being a HCW were significantly associated with higher coverage in all multivariable logistic regression analyses. Higher education was also consistently associated with higher coverage, but the difference did not reach significance in all influenza seasons. Educational attainment was not significantly associated with coverage while coverage was at its lowest (2014/15-2017/18), but as coverage increased, so did the differences. Individuals with intermediate or lower education were less likely to report vaccination than those with higher education in season 2018/19, OR = 0.61 (95 % CI 0.46-0.80) and OR = 0.58 (95 % CI 0.41-0.83), respectively, and in season 2019/20, OR = 0.69 (95 % CI 0.55-0.88) and OR = 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53-0.95), respectively. When the vaccine was funded in the COVID-19 pandemic winter of 2020/21, educational differences diminished again and were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: We observed widening educational differences in influenza vaccination coverage as coverage increased from 2014/15 to 2019/20. When influenza vaccination was funded in 2020/21, differences in coverage by educational attainment diminished. These findings indicate that economic barriers influence influenza vaccination decisions among risk groups in Norway.