Perceptions and Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in a Military Base Population

Abstract: Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted. An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. Results A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n  = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P  < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P  < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P  < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P  < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P  < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P  = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P  = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P  = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P  < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P  = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P  < .001). Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population. 

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Researchers

    Qualitative analysis of the lived experience of reproductive and pediatric health care in the military health care system

    Abstract: Introduction: Persistent inequities exist in obstetric and neonatal outcomes in military families despite universal health care coverage. Though the exact underlying cause has not been identified, social determinants of health may uniquely impact military families. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively investigate the potential impact of social determinants of health and the lived experiences of military individuals seeking maternity care in the Military Health System. Materials and methods: This was an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. Nine providers conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with individuals who delivered within the last 5 years in the direct or purchased care market. Participants were recruited through social media blasts and clinic flyers with both maximum variation and homogenous sampling to ensure participation of diverse individuals. Data were coded and themes were identified using inductive qualitative research methods. Results: Three main themes were identified: Requirements of Military Life (with subthemes of pregnancy notification and privacy during care, role of pregnancy instructions and policies, and role of command support), Sociocultural Aspects of the Military Experience (with subthemes of pregnancy as a burden on colleagues and a career detractor, postpartum adjustment, balancing personal and professional requirements, pregnancy timing and parenting challenges, and importance of friendship and camaraderie in pregnancy), and Navigating the Healthcare Experience (including subthemes of transfer between military and civilian care and TRICARE challenges, perception of military care as inferior to civilian, and remote duty stations and international care). Conclusions: The unique stressors of military life act synergistically with the existing health care challenges, presenting opportunities for improvements in care. Such opportunities may include increased consistency of policies across services and commands. Increased access to group prenatal care and support groups, and increased assistance with navigating the health care system to improve care transitions were frequently requested changes by participants.