[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table 1.  Focus Group Participant Demographic Characteristics (N = 70)
Focus Group Participant Demographic Characteristics (N = 70)
Table 2.  Themes, Subthemes, and Salient Quotes for COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability and Deliberation Within Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities Using World Health Organization Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix Categories
Themes, Subthemes, and Salient Quotes for COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability and Deliberation Within Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities Using World Health Organization Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix Categories
Table 3.  Policy Recommendations and Strategies to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Equity, Trust, Confidence, and Accessibility Endorsed by Racial and Ethnic Minority Participants Using the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix Categories
Policy Recommendations and Strategies to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Equity, Trust, Confidence, and Accessibility Endorsed by Racial and Ethnic Minority Participants Using the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix Categories
1.
Corbie-Smith  G.  Vaccine hesitancy is a scapegoat for structural racism.   JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2(3):e210434-e210434. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0434 Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Malik  AA, McFadden  SM, Elharake  J, Omer  SB.  Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US.   EClinicalMedicine. 2020;26:100495. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100495 PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Szilagyi  PG, Thomas  K, Shah  MD,  et al.  National trends in the US public’s likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine—April 1 to December 8, 2020.   JAMA. 2020;325(4):396-398. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.26419 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Khubchandani  J, Sharma  S, Price  JH, Wiblishauser  MJ, Sharma  M, Webb  FJ.  COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the united states: a rapid national assessment.   J Community Health. 2021;46(2):270-277. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00958-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Shekhar  R, Sheikh  AB, Upadhyay  S,  et al.  COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers in the United States.   Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):119. doi:10.3390/vaccines9020119 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Bogart  LM, Ojikutu  BO, Tyagi  K,  et al. COVID-19 related medical mistrust, health impacts, and potential vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans living with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Synd. 2021;86(2):200-2007. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000002570
7.
Savoia  E, Piltch-Loeb  R, Goldberg  B,  et al.  Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: socio-demographics, co-morbidity and past experience of racial discrimination.  medRxiv. Preprint posted online January 13, 2021. 2021.
8.
Quinn  S, Jamison  A, Musa  D, Hilyard  K, Freimuth  V.  Exploring the continuum of vaccine hesitancy between African American and white adults: results of a qualitative study.   PLoS Curr. 2016;8:8. doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks.3e4a5ea39d8620494e2a2c874a3c4201 PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Chen  JY, Fox  SA, Cantrell  CH, Stockdale  SE, Kagawa-Singer  M.  Health disparities and prevention: racial/ethnic barriers to flu vaccinations.   J Community Health. 2007;32(1):5-20. doi:10.1007/s10900-006-9031-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Bajaj  SS, Stanford  FC.  Beyond Tuskegee—vaccine distrust and everyday racism.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):e12. doi:10.1056/NEJMpv2035827 PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Cervantes  L, Martin  M, Frank  MG,  et al.  Experiences of Latinx individuals hospitalized for COVID-19: a qualitative study.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e210684. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0684 PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Caserotti  M, Girardi  P, Rubaltelli  E, Tasso  A, Lotto  L, Gavaruzzi  T. Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113688. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113688
13.
MacDonald  NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.  Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants.   Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161-4164. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Salmon  D, Opel  DJ, Dudley  MZ, Brewer  J, Breiman  R. Reflections On governance, communication, and equity: challenges and opportunities in COVID-19 vaccination. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(3):419-425. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02254
15.
Su  Z, Wen  J, Abbas  J,  et al.  A race for a better understanding of COVID-19 vaccine non-adopters.   Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020;9:100159. doi:10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100159 PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Burgess  RA, Osborne  RH, Yongabi  KA,  et al.  The COVID-19 vaccines rush: participatory community engagement matters more than ever.   Lancet. 2021;397(10268):8-10. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32642-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Vergara  RJD, Sarmiento  PJD, Lagman  JDN.  Building public trust: a response to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy predicament.   J Public Health (Oxf). 2021;43(2):e291-e292. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdaa282 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Carson  SL, Gonzalez  C, Lopez  S,  et al.  Reflections on the importance of community-partnered research strategies for health equity in the era of COVID-19.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(4):1515-1519. doi:10.1353/hpu.2020.0112 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Los Angeles County Daily COVID-19 Data: Age Adjusted Death Rates due to COVID-19 per 100K (March 14, 2021). 2021. Accessed March 16, 2021. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/index.htm
20.
O’Brien  BC, Harris  IB, Beckman  TJ, Reed  DA, Cook  DA.  Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.   Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
King  O.  Two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines: an analysis of the shortfalls.   Res Nurs Health. 2021;44(4):715-723. doi:10.1002/nur.22157 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Grant  BM, Giddings  LS.  Making sense of methodologies: a paradigm framework for the novice researcher.   Contemp Nurse. 2002;13(1):10-28. doi:10.5172/conu.13.1.10 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Archibald  MM, Ambagtsheer  RC, Casey  MG, Lawless  M.  Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants.   Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596. doi:10.1177/1609406919874596 Google Scholar
24.
Wong  T. Little noticed, Filipino Americans are dying of COVID-19 at an alarming rate. The Los Angeles Times. July 21, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-21/filipino-americans-dying-covid
25.
Hayes-Bautista  DE, Hsu  P. For Whom the Bell Tolls: COVID-19 Death Patterns in California. UCLA Health, Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture. July 8, 2020. Accessed March 16, 2021. https://www.uclahealth.org/ceslac/workfiles/Research/COVID19/For-Whom-the-Bell-Tolls-COVID-19-Death-Patterns-in-California.pdf
26.
Rudy  ET, Newman  PA, Duan  N, Kelly  EM, Roberts  KJ, Seiden  DS.  HIV vaccine acceptability among women at risk: perceived barriers and facilitators to future HIV vaccine uptake.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2005;17(3):253-267. doi:10.1521/aeap.17.4.253.66529 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Mehta  P, Sharma  M, Lee  RC.  Using the health belief model in qualitative focus groups to identify HPV vaccine acceptability in college men.   Int Q Community Health Educ. 2012-2013;33(2):175-187. doi:10.2190/IQ.33.2.f PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Newman  PA, Logie  C, James  L,  et al.  “Speaking the dialect”: understanding public discourse in the aftermath of an HIV vaccine trial shutdown.   Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1749-1758. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300208 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Kobetz  E, Menard  J, Hazan  G,  et al.  Perceptions of HPV and cervical cancer among Haitian immigrant women: implications for vaccine acceptability.   Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24(3):479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Fletcher  AJ.  Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method.   Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(2):181-194. doi:10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401 Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Braun  V, Clarke  V.  Using thematic analysis in psychology.   Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Braun  V, Clarke  V, Hayfield  N, Terry  G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong  P, ed.  Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Singapore; 2019:843-860. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
33.
Schuster  M, Eskola  J, Duclos  P; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.  Review of vaccine hesitancy: Rationale, remit and methods.   Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4157-4160. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
World Health Organization.  Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. World Health Organization; 2014.
35.
World Health Organization. Appendices to the Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Working Group; October 1, 2014.
36.
Thomson  A, Robinson  K, Vallée-Tourangeau  G.  The 5As: a practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake.   Vaccine. 2016;34(8):1018-1024. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.065 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
World Health Organization. Meeting Report: Measuring Behavioural and Social Drivers (BeSD) of Vaccination Working Group. 2019. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/Meeting_report_May2019.pdf?ua=1
38.
World Health Organization. Data for action: achieving high uptake of COVID-19 vaccines: gathering and using data on the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination: a guidebook for immunization programmes and implementing partners: interim guidance, 1 April 2021. World Health Organization; 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/339452
39.
Shapiro  GK, Kaufman  J, Brewer  NT, Wiley  K, Menning  L, Leask  J; BeSD Working Group.  A critical review of measures of childhood vaccine confidence.   Curr Opin Immunol. 2021;71:34-45. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2021.04.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Bedford  H, Attwell  K, Danchin  M, Marshall  H, Corben  P, Leask  J.  Vaccine hesitancy, refusal and access barriers: The need for clarity in terminology.   Vaccine. 2018;36(44):6556-6558. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Lee  BY, Mueller  LE, Tilchin  CG.  A systems approach to vaccine decision making.   Vaccine. 2017;35(suppl 1):A36-A42. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.033 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Latkin  CA, Dayton  L, Yi  G, Konstantopoulos  A, Boodram  B.  Trust in a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.: A social-ecological perspective.   Soc Sci Med. 2021;270:113684. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113684 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Callaghan  T, Moghtaderi  A, Lueck  JA,  et al.  Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19.   Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113638. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113638PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
HelpAge USA. Early Insights on Research Among Older Black and Hispanic Adults [press release]. February 19, 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://helpageusa.org/resources/news-headlines-test/early-insights-on-helpage-usas-covid19-vaccine-communications-research
45.
Bogart  LM, Dong  L, Gandhi  P,  et al. What Contributes to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Communities, and How Can It Be Addressed? RAND Corporation; 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1110-1.html
46.
Galbraith  KV, Lechuga  J, Jenerette  CM, Moore  LA, Palmer  MH, Hamilton  JB.  Parental acceptance and uptake of the HPV vaccine among African-Americans and Latinos in the United States: A literature review.   Soc Sci Med. 2016;159:116-126. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Jeudin  P, Liveright  E, Del Carmen  MG, Perkins  RB.  Race, ethnicity, and income factors impacting human papillomavirus vaccination rates.   Clin Ther. 2014;36(1):24-37. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.11.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Center  KE, Da Silva  J, Hernandez  AL,  et al.  Multidisciplinary community-based investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak among Marshallese and Hispanic/Latino communities—Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas, March-June 2020.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(48):1807-1811. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6948a2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Karlsson  LC, Soveri  A, Lewandowsky  S,  et al.  Fearing the disease or the vaccine: the case of COVID-19.   Pers Individ Dif. 2021;172:110590. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110590 PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Quinn  SC, Jamison  A, Freimuth  VS, An  J, Hancock  GR, Musa  D.  Exploring racial influences on flu vaccine attitudes and behavior: results of a national survey of White and African American adults.   Vaccine. 2017;35(8):1167-1174. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.046 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Jamison  AM, Quinn  SC, Freimuth  VS.  “You don’t trust a government vaccine”: narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults.   Soc Sci Med. 2019;221:87-94. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.020 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Warren  RC, Forrow  L, Hodge  DA  Sr, Truog  RD.  Trustworthiness before trust—Covid-19 vaccine trials and the Black community.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):e121. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2030033 PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Leitch  S, Corbin  JH, Boston-Fisher  N,  et al.  Black Lives Matter in health promotion: moving from unspoken to outspoken.   Health Promot Int. 2020;daaa121. doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa121 PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Bor  J, Venkataramani  AS, Williams  DR, Tsai  AC.  Police killings and their spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: a population-based, quasi-experimental study.   Lancet. 2018;392(10144):302-310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31130-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Momplaisir  F, Haynes  N, Nkwihoreze  H, Nelson  M, Werner  RM, Jemmott  J.  Understanding drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Blacks.   Clin Infect Dis. 2021;ciab102. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab102 PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Page  KR, Venkataramani  M, Beyrer  C, Polk  S.  Undocumented U.S. immigrants and Covid-19.   N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):e62. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2005953 PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Gover  AR, Harper  SB, Langton  L.  Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring the reproduction of inequality.   Am J Crim Justice. 2020;45(4):1-21. doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Oluyomi  AO, Gunter  SM, Leining  LM, Murray  KO, Amos  C.  COVID-19 community incidence and associated neighborhood-level characteristics in Houston, Texas, USA.   Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1495. doi:10.3390/ijerph18041495 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Paremoer  L, Nandi  S, Serag  H, Baum  F.  Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health.   BMJ. 2021;372(n129):n129. doi:10.1136/bmj.n129 PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Data as of February 1 on State Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation. Newsroom website. Published 2021. Accessed February 16, 2021. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/data-as-of-february-1-on-state-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/
61.
National Institutes of Health. Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) Programs. National Institutes of Health. Published 2021. Accessed March 26, 2021. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/radx
62.
National Institutes of Health. NIH Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL). National Institutes of Health. Published 2021. Accessed March 26, 2021. https://covid19community.nih.gov
63.
Los Angeles County Large-Scale Vaccination Sites Open; Vaccine Eligibility Opens to County Residents Aged 65 Years and Older [press release]. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, January 19, 2021. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2923
64.
Griffith  DM, Bergner  EM, Fair  AS, Wilkins  CH.  Using mistrust, distrust, and low trust precisely in medical care and medical research advances health equity.   Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(3):442-445. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2020.08.019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Larson  HJ, Clarke  RM, Jarrett  C,  et al.  Measuring trust in vaccination: a systematic review.   Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(7):1599-1609. doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1459252 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Public Health
September 30, 2021

COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-making Factors in Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities in Los Angeles, California

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 2Department of Family Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 3Division of Infectious Disease, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 4Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, California
  • 5Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 6Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
  • 7Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 8Institute for Society & Genetics, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 9Institute for Precision Health, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2127582. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27582
Key Points

Question  What factors do members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity in Los Angeles County, California, cite as influencing vaccine decision-making and acceptability?

Findings  In this qualitative study, 70 participants from racial and ethnic minority communities in Los Angeles County described a complex vaccination decision-making process influenced by misinformation and politicization, deep apprehension related to historical inequity and mistreatment, access barriers related to social disadvantage, and a need for community engagement and trusted messengers.

Meaning  This study suggests that COVID-19 vaccine equity will require multifaceted policies and programming that respect community concerns and the need for informed deliberation, invest in community-based engagement, improve accessibility and transparency of information, and reduce structural barriers in vaccination.

Abstract

Importance  The COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19–related disparities.

Objective  To examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Themes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization’s Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories.

Results  A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access. Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require multifaceted, multilevel policy approaches that improve COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, enhance trust, and address the complex interplay of sociocultural and structural barriers to vaccination.

Introduction

Increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake is essential to reducing COVID-19 disparities, but it requires understanding the process and needs within vaccine decision-making. Vaccine decision-making, including deliberation, describes weighing the pros and cons of vaccine efficacy and safety and is a normal, appropriate response to any new treatment or intervention.1 In the US, racial and ethnic minority communities have the highest risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality yet report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine.2-5 Medical mistrust, rooted in historical and contemporary racism, has lowered vaccine confidence in racial and ethnic minority groups.6-10 However, vaccine uptake is influenced by more than mistrust, including socioeconomic and health inequity.1,8,9,11

Because vaccine acceptability is strongly associated with vaccine uptake, understanding factors that influence the multifaceted vaccine decision-making process is critical to narrowing COVID-19–related disparities in racial and ethnic minority communities. It is essential to consider the factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine acceptability and how the decision-making process may differ from other vaccines. These factors link to unique perceptions of disease risk and context, such as one’s emotional state and sociopolitical and environmental influences.12,13 Therefore, aspects unique to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the ongoing sociopolitical contexts, mistrust, economic instability, and mental and health challenges, add to the complexity of the vaccine decision-making process.14 Given the multilevel nature of vaccine concerns, an inquiry into the commonalities between marginalized groups is required to tailor community engagement approaches.14-18

This study explores barriers to and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine readiness reported by members of disproportionately affected multiethnic communities in Los Angeles County (LAC), California. Exploration of factors in the decision-making process for COVID-19 vaccines can inform public health and policy initiatives for equitable vaccine distribution.

Methods
Study Design, Participants, and Setting

We used community-engaged qualitative methods to better understand factors that contribute to vaccine deliberation and acceptability in racial and ethnic minority groups at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity in LAC. Los Angeles County is a uniquely fitting setting to address these questions—it is the most populous and 1 of the most diverse counties, has among the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority individuals and high-poverty communities.19 The UCLA Institutional Review Board approved the study, and we obtained verbal informed consent from all participants. Although focus group facilitators, moderators, and participants used their personal names within the virtual focus groups, all personal identifiers (names and workplaces) were removed from transcripts by the professional transcription company before analysis. We report our findings using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) reporting guideline.20,21 A critical and radical paradigm22 and community-partnered research methods guided this study. Local community partners and a community advisory board collaborated on study design, recruitment, interpretation, and dissemination.

Between November 16, 2020, and January 28, 2021, we conducted 2-hour virtual focus groups with LAC residents using Zoom.23 We recruited individuals virtually through telephone, video conferencing, and email outreach to community partners and networks from communities that face a high risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality attributable to race and ethnicity, age, essential worker status, and residential area (median household income <$40 000, 2010 US Census).19,24,25 Eligible participants self-identified as American Indian, Black/African American, Filipino/Filipina, Latino/Latina, or Pacific Islander. Focus groups were stratified by race and ethnicity as well as age (≥50 years, <50 years, or mixed age). Of 144 candidates screened, 6 were ineligible because of self-reported White race and ethnicity, and 13 were excluded because of insufficient numbers for a specific racial and ethnic focus group (ie, <3). We ordered and sequentially recruited from the remaining 125 eligible participants by race and ethnicity as well as age, prioritizing essential workers and residents of low-income zip codes. Of 81 invited to participate, 70 participated in 13 focus groups (4-6 per group).

Data Collection

A semistructured focus group guide was developed from previous qualitative vaccine acceptability studies26-29 with input from community organizations. Question domains on COVID-19 vaccines included concerns, risks, benefits, information sources, trusted entities, barriers, and recommendations for improving access (Box). Participants were asked to contribute as both individuals and experts representing their families and communities.

Box Section Ref ID
Box.

Focus Group Question Guide

  • Icebreaker: Please state your name, tribal affiliation (if applicable), current feelings on the pandemic, and 1 word to describe your racial/ethnic community.

  • What have you or members from your community heard about any vaccines to protect against COVID-19?

  • What concerns do you, your family, or your community have about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine? What additional information do you need to feel comfortable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine?

  • When a COVID-19 vaccine is available, who and where would you feel most comfortable getting the vaccine?

  • What do you think are some risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine?

  • Situational question: It could be the case that some of the vaccines offered may not 100% protect against COVID-19 infection. The vaccine may lower the chances of being infected by COVID-19. Or, if you do get COVID, the vaccine may lower your chances of getting very sick from it (reduce the severity of the disease or reduce additional health complications). However, it may not be perfect, and it may not prevent 100% of people from COVID-19. How would you feel about the information (that getting the vaccine does not 100% protect against being infected)?

  • What challenges do you, your family, or people you know may face in getting the COVID-19 vaccine?

  • What are some ways to get the COVID-19 vaccine to the people who need it most when it becomes available?

We provided partner organizations with a study description to assist with recruitment. We also described how research outcomes might benefit their respective organizational missions, including strategic planning about COVID-19 education.

To enhance congruency between researchers and participants, in all but 1 focus group, either the moderator, trained as the facilitator, or a community partner, self-identified with the group participants’ race or ethnicity. Each group began by restating the study’s purpose and emphasizing the importance of community voices for understanding COVID-19 vaccine acceptability to shape public health policies. We facilitated an icebreaker where moderators and participants described their community and feelings on the pandemic. Two focus groups were conducted in Spanish, and the other 11 were conducted in English. Several research team members attended each focus group to ensure consistent use of the focus group guide and prompts, facilitate debriefing, and record field notes. Recordings were deidentified, translated, and transcribed by a professional transcription service. Each participant received a $100 gift card and completed an online demographic and attitudes survey.

Data Analysis

We analyzed transcripts using a critical realist,30 reflexive, 6-phase thematic analysis approach31,32 in Atlas.Ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH). Two experienced coders (S.L.C. and L.N.M.) reviewed the transcripts and field notes to develop a preliminary codebook, then tested and amended the codebook’s initial practicality after the coding of 2 transcripts. The coders reached iterative consensus on the evolving codebook, code definitions, and coding approach and used memos to document thematic evolution throughout the analysis. Triangulation was achieved by reviewing the field notes, holding iterative discussions with all moderators and facilitators, and sharing preliminary results at community partnered meetings to validate perspectives.

We used the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix (VHM), developed by the World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Vaccine Hesitancy Working Group,33,34 to categorize prominent themes shared commonly across all racial and ethnic groups and most focus groups. The VHM categorizes vaccine hesitancy determinants into contextual influences (historical, sociocultural, environmental, health system or institutional, and economic or political factors), individual and group influences (personal, social, and peer environment), and vaccine- or vaccination-specific issues (vaccine or vaccination factors).13,34,35 Although various vaccine hesitancy definitions, determinants, measures, models, and terms exist,36-39 including arguments for inclusion or exclusion of vaccine social determinants,40 the VHM provides a multifaceted picture of vaccine acceptability. The VHM accounts for factors other than hesitancy and vaccine refusal, such as vaccination program design, allowing for systems-level41 perspectives in COVID-19 vaccine decision-making.

Results

A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female). We conducted 3 American Indian focus groups (n = 17), 3 Black/African American groups (n = 17 participants), 2 Filipino/Filipina groups (n = 11), 3 Latino/Latina groups (n = 15), and two Pacific Islander groups (n = 10). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. A total of 31 (44.3%) were employed full time, and 13 (10.0%) were unemployed and 8 (11.4%) retired. A total of 37 (52.9%) reported they were likely or very likely to receive the vaccine when available. Demographic characteristics and survey responses are given in Table 1 and eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement.

Participants described influences in their vaccine decision-making process. We organized results using the VHM constructs, reporting themes, subthemes, and quotes in Table 2. The specificity and comprehensiveness of the VHM worked well to frame results by accounting for interrelated socioeconomic and contextual factors occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, most of the resulting themes portray dimensions within potential vaccine inequity for each VHM category.

Contextual Influences
Unclear and Unreliable Information

Participants described conflicting vaccine information in the news, social media, and from leaders, likely stemming from an absence of factual information, misinformation, and a scarcity of trusted messengers or sources. A Latino/Latina participant (focus group 12) explained, “These kinds of decisions should be informed decisions after getting information from authentic sources of information.”

References to Unethical Historical or Contemporary Research Leading to Mistrust

Specific examples of unethical historical or contemporary research affecting one’s community negatively influenced trust in COVID-19 vaccine research. Consequentially, many expressed hesitation about being among the first to be vaccinated, and several expressed fears of experimentation. A Black/African American participant (focus group 5) described a “general unease,” which others endorsed because of previous unethical research, mistreatment, experimentation, or discrimination. Participants requested acknowledgment, empathy, and understanding of current and historical events that led to their communities’ mistrust.

Concern for Inequitable Access or Differential Treatment in Vaccination

All groups expressed deep concerns about potential inequity in vaccine management, distribution, access, and quality. Participants feared receiving differential treatment, projecting that well-resourced communities, White people, and the “rich and powerful” (Filipino/Filipina participant from focus group 1) would be the first to receive a vaccine and would receive higher-quality or better treatment during vaccination.

Accessibility Barriers, Accommodation Barriers, and Eligibility Uncertainty

Several social determinants of health were identified as barriers to vaccine access (availability and quality of translation services as well as limited technology or internet access to register), vaccination accommodations (limited transportation, a lack of employment benefits, including paid time off for vaccination, or adverse effects), or vaccine eligibility (uninsured or undocumented). An American Indian participant (focus group 10) described a “logistical nightmare” to access transportation for vaccination.

Fear of Political or Pharmaceutical Industry Influences

Participants described political influences in vaccine development and pharmaceutical companies’ interests, motives, and profits. A Filipino/Filipina participant (focus group 9) described limited “trust in politics” as a barrier to vaccination.

Individual and Group Influences
Inadequate Exposure to Trusted Messengers or Information

Many felt compelled to consider receiving the vaccine to protect themselves or others but expressed uncertainty because of insufficient information, including a lack of opportunities to discuss vaccine concerns. Facing this dilemma, many wanted to wait. Participants desired notification and communication about the COVID-19 vaccine from their medical practitioners, local health centers, and community leaders. A Pacific Islander participant (focus group 2) explained, “There’s definitely some key leaders in each of our communities. Some of them may be faith leaders.”

Altruistic Motivations

Participants desired outreach strategies that promoted altruistic vaccination motivations, including how the vaccine may “protect us all” from infection to themselves or communities (Latino/Latina participant in focus group 8). Participants were optimistic about the potential of reducing stress as well as infection risks and desiring a return to social and cultural norms.

Medical Mistrust

Some participants described medical mistrust, worried about overmedicalization, or referenced past medical experiences, including medical errors, mistreatment, and racism in health care. As such, participants requested sensitive, respectful, and equitable treatment during vaccination.

Desire for Autonomy

Some worried that vaccines would become mandatory and expressed a desire for autonomy “to be respected” around informed decision-making, particularly given the current uncertainties regarding themselves or their community’s safety (American Indian participant in focus group 4).

Vaccine and Vaccination-Specific Influences
Need for Vaccine Evidence by Subpopulation

Many expressed a belief that the vaccine clinical trials primarily included healthy, young, and White participants. They wanted to see clinical trial demographic characteristics and evidence of the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety outcomes, requesting data representing the same racial and ethnic community, age group, and health conditions. A Black/African American participant (focus group 5) stated interest in “any data that’s connected with some of the conditions that are prevalent in our community.”

Vaccine Development Misconception

Because of the development of multiple vaccines, participants questioned whether they should wait for future iterations with improved safety and efficacy profiles. Participants questioned the rapid vaccine development process and whether the scientific or testing process had been rushed. A Black/African American participant (focus group 12) asked, “Is this like the rough draft?”

Allocation Ambiguity and Cost Uncertainty

The allocation process seemed unclear, including notification and requirements, insurance coverage, or out-of-pocket costs. A Pacific Islander participant (focus group 2) stated that uncertainties are “tied to not having enough information.”

Vaccination Safety Preferences

Preferences for vaccination location included familiar or local sites instead of a mass vaccination site with long lines or crowds that would increase COVID-19 exposure risk. Additional site concerns included a lack of accommodations for disabled, elderly, or immobile people. Others worried large sites would lack proper medical attention to monitor adverse effects with too much “room for error” (Latino/Latina participant in focus group 13). Although local, familiar sites were preferred, participants worried about vaccination infrastructure within underresourced communities (ie, a trusted site may lack suitable freezers for vaccine storage).

Importance of Perceiving Equity Across One’s Community

Participants emphasized the importance of equitable vaccine allocation in their communities but feared certain groups would be left behind, including “low-income, homeless,” bedridden, or incarcerated individuals (Latino/Latina participant in focus group 13).

Burden of Vaccine Schedule on Caregivers or Families

Dual-dose vaccine schedules were seen as an additional burden for families or caregivers, those “having to take all the kids,” those with limited transportation access, or those with other mobility obstacles (American Indian participant in focus group 4).

Desire for Health Care Practitioner Recommendation

Participants with underlying health conditions or concerns expressed a desire for a practitioner recommendation for vaccination. A Pacific Islander participant (focus group 7) explained, “I would first ask the doctor if I’m able to… I’ll trust him and go wherever he says.”

Policy Recommendations and Strategies to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Equity, Trust, and Accessibility

Participants offered and endorsed recommendations or strategies for improved vaccine confidence and accessibility (Table 3). Recommendations include using community engagement, improving empathetic bidirectional deliberation, ensuring timely access to critical information, promoting altruistic and culturally congruent messaging, increasing data transparency, translation, and data collection for diverse populations, and increasing accessibility through navigational and logistical vaccination support.

Community-Partnered Products

Because this was a community-partnered study, we developed COVID-19 vaccine information guides based on the most common questions and concerns described in this study and shared them with all participants. Preliminary results and vaccine-related information were shared with participants, community partners, public health officials, and policymakers through community presentations.

Discussion

This qualitative study identified factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine decision-making across different racial and ethnic low-income communities in LAC. Themes included fear of differential vaccine treatment, mistrust from unethical research or mistreatment in medicine, inadequate vaccine evidence and information, inequitable allocation and accessibility, and inadequate community engagement efforts. To enhance acceptability and accessibility, disseminating critical information from trusted messengers about population-specific vaccine safety data and providing navigational support to address structural barriers were suggested by participants.

Consistent with prior COVID-19 vaccine acceptability qualitative research, we found information gaps, concerns about the vaccine’s rapid development, and an absence of scientific evidence translated for diverse communities.11,42-45 Culturally centered care and practitioner recommendations may help promote vaccine acceptability, trust, and combat misinformation.6,46,47 However, a previous study47 found that racial and ethnic minority populations are less likely to receive practitioner recommendations for vaccinations. More recent evidence48 suggests inadequate in-language education on COVID-19 information and prevention. Comprehensive messaging of crucial information, particularly about vaccine safety49 and efficacy, is needed to make informed decisions and requires critical investment in trusted messengers, including physician recommendations.1,14 In particular, our study expanded informational needs to include outcomes data relevant to minority communities, such as population-based participant data in vaccine clinical trials and, when available, effectiveness outcomes by age, race and ethnicity, or chronic disease. Addressing these needs will be particularly important for racial and ethnic minority groups who already face health disparities and fear COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects.

Participants voiced concerns about systemic inequality across the vaccine development and distribution continuum, from clinical trial participation to allocation to mistreatment during vaccination. A previous study50 found historical discrimination influences mistrust of health care, including vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, influences from systematic and institutional mistrust, including widespread uncertainty stemming from the pandemic and recent social justice movements, can create additional obstacles for vaccine uptake.42,51-57 A lack of equity, transparency, or outreach to repair breaches in trust may further erode confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and health care more broadly.

Because racial and ethnic minority communities are disproportionately affected by social factors that worsen COVID-19–related disparities,9,43,58,59 it is critical to identify the societal conditions and harms that lead to these unique vaccination barriers.8,9,11 Participants in our study highlighted the difference between equity and equality in vaccine distribution, often referencing concerns about personal, family, or community members who might have difficulty accessing the vaccine without additional attention to availability and cost of transportation, technology assistance, access to medical recommendations, time off from work, and more. Unfortunately, many of these misgivings were realized in the early phases of the vaccine distribution, which has been marred by allocation and uptake disparities, resulting in the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority individuals, low-income communities, and essential workers.60

The recommendations from study participants to improve vaccine acceptability and accessibility in their communities can support building long-term trust in health care, the scientific process, and public-facing governmental and institutional systems. A multipronged approach to building vaccine acceptability in disenfranchised communities will require local, community-centered actions and activities that develop an understanding of hesitancy, build trust, promote deliberation, and translate findings to national initiatives and policy improvements. National funding initiatives, such as the National Institutes of Health Community Engagement Alliance and Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics, have promoted community engagement to reduce COVID-19 disparities by developing and disseminating prevention strategies, including clinical trial participation and vaccine or therapeutic uptake.61,62

Limitations

This study has limitations. Its primary intent was to describe common needs and potential areas for intervention for COVID-19 vaccine rollout in high-risk communities in LAC; thus, we did not compare or quantify specific differences across racial and ethnic groups or by age. Future comparative research should examine differences among communities to elucidate how best to tailor interventions. Our findings may not be generalizable to other high-risk groups or geographic areas. Virtual participation requirements may have led to a selection bias against those with limited telephone or internet access, although we offered tablets and Wi-Fi access. This study started before vaccines received US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization and ended before vaccines became widely available.63 During the study period, COVID-19 vaccine knowledge and awareness shifted. However, findings provide real-time insight into community knowledge, concerns, questions, hopes, and barriers related to the COVID-19 vaccines, potentially future vaccines, and therapies.

Conclusions

Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake in vulnerable communities is critical for narrowing the racial and ethnic as well as socioeconomic disparities observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this study highlights the continual unanswered need in the medical literature to determine the spectrum of mistrust and the interplay with health care decision-making,64,65 members of these communities described wide-ranging structural barriers, disparate reasons for historical and contemporary trauma, and insufficient engagement for COVID-19 vaccine accessibility. Participants in this study identified interrelated factors that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making while emphasizing the importance of equitable access and the parallel need for community engagement in building long-term trust in health care, the scientific process, and public-facing governmental and institutional systems among historically and currently marginalized populations.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 23, 2021.

Published: September 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27582

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Carson SL et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Savanna L. Carson, PhD, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 1100 Glendon, Ste 1820, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (scarson@mednet.ucla.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Carson had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Morris, Barron, Ntekume, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Garrison, Brown.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Barron, Ntekume, Landovitz, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.

Drafting of the manuscript: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Morris, Ntekume, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Barron, Ntekume, Landovitz, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Garrison.

Statistical analysis: Carson, Mansfield.

Obtained funding: Carson, Vassar, Norris, Dubinett, Brown.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Carson, Casillas, Castellon-Lopez, Mansfield, Morris, Barron, Ntekume, Vassar, Garrison, Brown.

Supervision: Carson, Casillas, Landovitz, Vassar, Norris, Brown.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Carson, Brown, Morris, Castellon, Casillas, and Garrison and Ms Vassar reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and the UCLA Oversight COVID-19 Research Committee during the conduct of the study. Dr Ntekume reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and the UCLA Oversight COVID-19 Research Committee during the conduct of the study. Dr Landovitz reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck Inc, Roche, and Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr Norris reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study and grants from National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This research is supported by grant 21-312-0217571-66106L from CEAL/STOP COVID-19 CA, grant UL1TR001881 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and grant OCRC 20-51 from UCLA.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The supporters of this study had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: The study participants, our Community Advisory Board, the UCLA Community Consultants Panel, and our community partners supported recruitment or provided feedback on preliminary results. We thank the diverse communities we come from and are embedded within that shape, influence, and guide our research approach in culturally congruent ways.

References
1.
Corbie-Smith  G.  Vaccine hesitancy is a scapegoat for structural racism.   JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2(3):e210434-e210434. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0434 Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Malik  AA, McFadden  SM, Elharake  J, Omer  SB.  Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US.   EClinicalMedicine. 2020;26:100495. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100495 PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Szilagyi  PG, Thomas  K, Shah  MD,  et al.  National trends in the US public’s likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine—April 1 to December 8, 2020.   JAMA. 2020;325(4):396-398. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.26419 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Khubchandani  J, Sharma  S, Price  JH, Wiblishauser  MJ, Sharma  M, Webb  FJ.  COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the united states: a rapid national assessment.   J Community Health. 2021;46(2):270-277. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00958-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Shekhar  R, Sheikh  AB, Upadhyay  S,  et al.  COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers in the United States.   Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):119. doi:10.3390/vaccines9020119 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Bogart  LM, Ojikutu  BO, Tyagi  K,  et al. COVID-19 related medical mistrust, health impacts, and potential vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans living with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Synd. 2021;86(2):200-2007. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000002570
7.
Savoia  E, Piltch-Loeb  R, Goldberg  B,  et al.  Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: socio-demographics, co-morbidity and past experience of racial discrimination.  medRxiv. Preprint posted online January 13, 2021. 2021.
8.
Quinn  S, Jamison  A, Musa  D, Hilyard  K, Freimuth  V.  Exploring the continuum of vaccine hesitancy between African American and white adults: results of a qualitative study.   PLoS Curr. 2016;8:8. doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks.3e4a5ea39d8620494e2a2c874a3c4201 PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Chen  JY, Fox  SA, Cantrell  CH, Stockdale  SE, Kagawa-Singer  M.  Health disparities and prevention: racial/ethnic barriers to flu vaccinations.   J Community Health. 2007;32(1):5-20. doi:10.1007/s10900-006-9031-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Bajaj  SS, Stanford  FC.  Beyond Tuskegee—vaccine distrust and everyday racism.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):e12. doi:10.1056/NEJMpv2035827 PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Cervantes  L, Martin  M, Frank  MG,  et al.  Experiences of Latinx individuals hospitalized for COVID-19: a qualitative study.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e210684. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0684 PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Caserotti  M, Girardi  P, Rubaltelli  E, Tasso  A, Lotto  L, Gavaruzzi  T. Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113688. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113688
13.
MacDonald  NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.  Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants.   Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161-4164. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Salmon  D, Opel  DJ, Dudley  MZ, Brewer  J, Breiman  R. Reflections On governance, communication, and equity: challenges and opportunities in COVID-19 vaccination. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(3):419-425. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02254
15.
Su  Z, Wen  J, Abbas  J,  et al.  A race for a better understanding of COVID-19 vaccine non-adopters.   Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020;9:100159. doi:10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100159 PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Burgess  RA, Osborne  RH, Yongabi  KA,  et al.  The COVID-19 vaccines rush: participatory community engagement matters more than ever.   Lancet. 2021;397(10268):8-10. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32642-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Vergara  RJD, Sarmiento  PJD, Lagman  JDN.  Building public trust: a response to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy predicament.   J Public Health (Oxf). 2021;43(2):e291-e292. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdaa282 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Carson  SL, Gonzalez  C, Lopez  S,  et al.  Reflections on the importance of community-partnered research strategies for health equity in the era of COVID-19.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(4):1515-1519. doi:10.1353/hpu.2020.0112 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Los Angeles County Daily COVID-19 Data: Age Adjusted Death Rates due to COVID-19 per 100K (March 14, 2021). 2021. Accessed March 16, 2021. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/index.htm
20.
O’Brien  BC, Harris  IB, Beckman  TJ, Reed  DA, Cook  DA.  Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.   Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
King  O.  Two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines: an analysis of the shortfalls.   Res Nurs Health. 2021;44(4):715-723. doi:10.1002/nur.22157 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Grant  BM, Giddings  LS.  Making sense of methodologies: a paradigm framework for the novice researcher.   Contemp Nurse. 2002;13(1):10-28. doi:10.5172/conu.13.1.10 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Archibald  MM, Ambagtsheer  RC, Casey  MG, Lawless  M.  Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants.   Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596. doi:10.1177/1609406919874596 Google Scholar
24.
Wong  T. Little noticed, Filipino Americans are dying of COVID-19 at an alarming rate. The Los Angeles Times. July 21, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-21/filipino-americans-dying-covid
25.
Hayes-Bautista  DE, Hsu  P. For Whom the Bell Tolls: COVID-19 Death Patterns in California. UCLA Health, Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture. July 8, 2020. Accessed March 16, 2021. https://www.uclahealth.org/ceslac/workfiles/Research/COVID19/For-Whom-the-Bell-Tolls-COVID-19-Death-Patterns-in-California.pdf
26.
Rudy  ET, Newman  PA, Duan  N, Kelly  EM, Roberts  KJ, Seiden  DS.  HIV vaccine acceptability among women at risk: perceived barriers and facilitators to future HIV vaccine uptake.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2005;17(3):253-267. doi:10.1521/aeap.17.4.253.66529 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Mehta  P, Sharma  M, Lee  RC.  Using the health belief model in qualitative focus groups to identify HPV vaccine acceptability in college men.   Int Q Community Health Educ. 2012-2013;33(2):175-187. doi:10.2190/IQ.33.2.f PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Newman  PA, Logie  C, James  L,  et al.  “Speaking the dialect”: understanding public discourse in the aftermath of an HIV vaccine trial shutdown.   Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1749-1758. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300208 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Kobetz  E, Menard  J, Hazan  G,  et al.  Perceptions of HPV and cervical cancer among Haitian immigrant women: implications for vaccine acceptability.   Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24(3):479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Fletcher  AJ.  Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method.   Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(2):181-194. doi:10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401 Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Braun  V, Clarke  V.  Using thematic analysis in psychology.   Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Braun  V, Clarke  V, Hayfield  N, Terry  G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong  P, ed.  Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Singapore; 2019:843-860. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
33.
Schuster  M, Eskola  J, Duclos  P; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.  Review of vaccine hesitancy: Rationale, remit and methods.   Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4157-4160. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
World Health Organization.  Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. World Health Organization; 2014.
35.
World Health Organization. Appendices to the Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Working Group; October 1, 2014.
36.
Thomson  A, Robinson  K, Vallée-Tourangeau  G.  The 5As: a practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake.   Vaccine. 2016;34(8):1018-1024. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.065 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
World Health Organization. Meeting Report: Measuring Behavioural and Social Drivers (BeSD) of Vaccination Working Group. 2019. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/Meeting_report_May2019.pdf?ua=1
38.
World Health Organization. Data for action: achieving high uptake of COVID-19 vaccines: gathering and using data on the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination: a guidebook for immunization programmes and implementing partners: interim guidance, 1 April 2021. World Health Organization; 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/339452
39.
Shapiro  GK, Kaufman  J, Brewer  NT, Wiley  K, Menning  L, Leask  J; BeSD Working Group.  A critical review of measures of childhood vaccine confidence.   Curr Opin Immunol. 2021;71:34-45. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2021.04.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Bedford  H, Attwell  K, Danchin  M, Marshall  H, Corben  P, Leask  J.  Vaccine hesitancy, refusal and access barriers: The need for clarity in terminology.   Vaccine. 2018;36(44):6556-6558. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Lee  BY, Mueller  LE, Tilchin  CG.  A systems approach to vaccine decision making.   Vaccine. 2017;35(suppl 1):A36-A42. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.033 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Latkin  CA, Dayton  L, Yi  G, Konstantopoulos  A, Boodram  B.  Trust in a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.: A social-ecological perspective.   Soc Sci Med. 2021;270:113684. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113684 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Callaghan  T, Moghtaderi  A, Lueck  JA,  et al.  Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19.   Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113638. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113638PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
HelpAge USA. Early Insights on Research Among Older Black and Hispanic Adults [press release]. February 19, 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://helpageusa.org/resources/news-headlines-test/early-insights-on-helpage-usas-covid19-vaccine-communications-research
45.
Bogart  LM, Dong  L, Gandhi  P,  et al. What Contributes to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Communities, and How Can It Be Addressed? RAND Corporation; 2021. Accessed July 9, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1110-1.html
46.
Galbraith  KV, Lechuga  J, Jenerette  CM, Moore  LA, Palmer  MH, Hamilton  JB.  Parental acceptance and uptake of the HPV vaccine among African-Americans and Latinos in the United States: A literature review.   Soc Sci Med. 2016;159:116-126. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Jeudin  P, Liveright  E, Del Carmen  MG, Perkins  RB.  Race, ethnicity, and income factors impacting human papillomavirus vaccination rates.   Clin Ther. 2014;36(1):24-37. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.11.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Center  KE, Da Silva  J, Hernandez  AL,  et al.  Multidisciplinary community-based investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak among Marshallese and Hispanic/Latino communities—Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas, March-June 2020.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(48):1807-1811. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6948a2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Karlsson  LC, Soveri  A, Lewandowsky  S,  et al.  Fearing the disease or the vaccine: the case of COVID-19.   Pers Individ Dif. 2021;172:110590. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110590 PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Quinn  SC, Jamison  A, Freimuth  VS, An  J, Hancock  GR, Musa  D.  Exploring racial influences on flu vaccine attitudes and behavior: results of a national survey of White and African American adults.   Vaccine. 2017;35(8):1167-1174. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.046 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Jamison  AM, Quinn  SC, Freimuth  VS.  “You don’t trust a government vaccine”: narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults.   Soc Sci Med. 2019;221:87-94. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.020 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Warren  RC, Forrow  L, Hodge  DA  Sr, Truog  RD.  Trustworthiness before trust—Covid-19 vaccine trials and the Black community.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):e121. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2030033 PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Leitch  S, Corbin  JH, Boston-Fisher  N,  et al.  Black Lives Matter in health promotion: moving from unspoken to outspoken.   Health Promot Int. 2020;daaa121. doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa121 PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Bor  J, Venkataramani  AS, Williams  DR, Tsai  AC.  Police killings and their spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: a population-based, quasi-experimental study.   Lancet. 2018;392(10144):302-310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31130-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Momplaisir  F, Haynes  N, Nkwihoreze  H, Nelson  M, Werner  RM, Jemmott  J.  Understanding drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Blacks.   Clin Infect Dis. 2021;ciab102. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab102 PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Page  KR, Venkataramani  M, Beyrer  C, Polk  S.  Undocumented U.S. immigrants and Covid-19.   N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):e62. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2005953 PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Gover  AR, Harper  SB, Langton  L.  Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring the reproduction of inequality.   Am J Crim Justice. 2020;45(4):1-21. doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Oluyomi  AO, Gunter  SM, Leining  LM, Murray  KO, Amos  C.  COVID-19 community incidence and associated neighborhood-level characteristics in Houston, Texas, USA.   Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1495. doi:10.3390/ijerph18041495 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Paremoer  L, Nandi  S, Serag  H, Baum  F.  Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health.   BMJ. 2021;372(n129):n129. doi:10.1136/bmj.n129 PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Data as of February 1 on State Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation. Newsroom website. Published 2021. Accessed February 16, 2021. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/data-as-of-february-1-on-state-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/
61.
National Institutes of Health. Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) Programs. National Institutes of Health. Published 2021. Accessed March 26, 2021. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/radx
62.
National Institutes of Health. NIH Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL). National Institutes of Health. Published 2021. Accessed March 26, 2021. https://covid19community.nih.gov
63.
Los Angeles County Large-Scale Vaccination Sites Open; Vaccine Eligibility Opens to County Residents Aged 65 Years and Older [press release]. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, January 19, 2021. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2923
64.
Griffith  DM, Bergner  EM, Fair  AS, Wilkins  CH.  Using mistrust, distrust, and low trust precisely in medical care and medical research advances health equity.   Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(3):442-445. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2020.08.019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Larson  HJ, Clarke  RM, Jarrett  C,  et al.  Measuring trust in vaccination: a systematic review.   Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(7):1599-1609. doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1459252 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×