IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01439-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and reduced vaccine confidence in rural underserved populations

Author

Listed:
  • Renee Robinson

    (Idaho State University
    University of Alaska/Idaho State University)

  • Elaine Nguyen

    (Idaho State University)

  • Melanie Wright

    (Idaho State University)

  • John Holmes

    (Idaho State University
    Idaho State University)

  • Catherine Oliphant

    (Idaho State University)

  • Kevin Cleveland

    (Idaho State University)

  • Mary A. Nies

    (Idaho State University)

Abstract

Vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to limit the spread of infectious diseases, and reduce mortality and morbidity in rural areas. Waning public confidence in vaccines, especially the COVID-19 vaccine, remains a cause for concern. A number of individuals in the US and worldwide remain complacent, choosing not to be vaccinated and/or delay COVID-19 vaccination, resulting in suboptimal herd immunity. The primary goal of this study is to identify modifiable factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among vaccine-eligible individuals with access to vaccines in two under-resourced rural states, Alaska and Idaho. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with providers and focus groups with community participants in Alaska and Idaho. A moderator’s guide was used to facilitate interviews and focus groups conducted and recorded using Zoom and transcribed verbatim. Thematic, qualitative analysis was conducted using QDA Miner. Themes and subthemes that emerged were labeled, categorized, and compared to previously described determinants of general vaccine hesitancy: established contextual, individual and/or social influences, vaccine and vaccination-specific concerns. Themes (n = 9) and sub-themes (n = 51) identified during the qualitative analysis highlighted a factor’s contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and poor vaccine uptake. Relevant influenceable factors were grouped into three main categories: confidence, complacency, and convenience. Vaccines are effective public health interventions to promote health and prevent diseases in rural areas. Practical solutions to engage healthcare providers, researchers, vaccine advocates, vaccine manufacturers, and other partners in local communities are needed to increase public trust in immunization systems to achieve community immunity.

Suggested Citation

  • Renee Robinson & Elaine Nguyen & Melanie Wright & John Holmes & Catherine Oliphant & Kevin Cleveland & Mary A. Nies, 2022. "Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and reduced vaccine confidence in rural underserved populations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01439-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01439-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01439-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01439-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seungwoo Han, 2024. "Trust and needles: how perceptions of inequality shape vaccination in South Korea," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Wen Jiao & Peter Johannes Schulz & Angela Chang, 2024. "Addressing the role of eHealth literacy in shaping popular attitudes towards post-COVID-19 vaccination among Chinese adults," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01439-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.