Cited by 25Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyMisinformation and Its ImpactsCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Trends in parents' confidence in childhood vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic

Open access
Shah, Megha D., Szilagyi, Peter G., Shetgiri, Rashmi, Delgado, Jeanne R., Vangala, Sitaram, Thomas, Kyla, Dudovitz, Rebecca N., Vizueta, Nathalie +2 more·2022·Pediatrics

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially disrupted well-child visits and vaccinations in the United States.1,2 Parent hesitancy for pediatric COVID-19 vaccines3 and widespread vaccine misinformation during the pandemic may have affected parent confidence in routine childhood vaccines. Little is known beyond 2 studies: 1 involved a convenience sample from a single medical center4; the other only evaluated adolescent vaccines.5 Using longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample, we assessed how parents’ confidence in childhood vaccines changed during the pandemic.We analyzed data from the Understanding America Study (UAS), a probability-based Internet panel of ∼9500 United States adults.6 Panel members were recruited by using address-based sampling and provided with Internet-enabled tablets if needed.Understanding Coronavirus in America surveys were administered to the UAS panel (in English and Spanish) biweekly from April 1, 2020 to February 16, 2021, then monthly through July 20, 2021, with 2 additional surveys from September 23 to October 1, 2021 and February 1 to March 30, 2022 (Supplemental Information). In every wave except for 2, respondents were asked whether they agreed with 4 statements (presented in random order) about childhood vaccines: “Childhood vaccines, such as those for measles or chicken pox: 1) provide important benefits to society; 2) may lead to illness or death; 3) have many known harmful side effects; 4) are useful and effective” (Response options: Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree). These questions were omitted in the June 10 to July 8, 2020 and July 8 to August 5, 2020 surveys because of cost constraints.We identified parents of children aged 0 to 17 years among UAS panel members on the basis of responses to My Household surveys, administered quarterly to all panel members to assess household characteristics (Supplemental Information). We examined trends in the percentage of parents who strongly agreed or agreed with each statement. For the “illness or death” and “harmful side effects” statements, we used linear regression models with cluster robust standard errors at the respondent level to assess characteristics associated with a change between the first (April 1–April 28, 2020) and most recent (Feb 1, 2022–March 30, 2022) waves. Analyses used SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC), were adjusted by using survey sampling weights, and used exempt data under the UAS Data Use Agreement.Across all survey waves, the weighted sample size of parent respondents ranged from 1412 to 1987. Parent response rates ranged from 96.9% to 71.5% in the first and last survey waves, respectively, and were similar to those of the overall panel (97.1% and 75.8% for the first and last waves, respectively).From April 2020 to March 2022, the percentage of parents who agreed with the “important benefits” and “useful and effective” statements remained stable and high, ranging from 89.5 to 92.5% and from 89.3 to 93.2%, respectively (Fig 1). By contrast, the percentage of parents who agreed with the illness or death and harmful side effects statements increased significantly by 13.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.4% to 16.9%) and 6.1% (95% CI: 2.2% to 9.9%), respectively (Tables 1 and 2). Statistically significant increases were observed for most parent subgroups (with overlapping CIs noted, suggesting no statistically significant differences between subgroups).In this national sample, the proportion of parents concerned about the safety and side effects of routine childhood vaccines increased significantly between April 2020 and March 2022; this trend was also observed for most parent subgroups. However, parent confidence in the benefits and effectiveness of childhood vaccines remained high. Our findings underscore the important role of pediatricians in addressing parents’ concerns about childhood vaccines, as they are highly trusted by parents about vaccinations7,8 and can address vaccine hesitancy.9,10 Pediatricians should therefore ask hesitant parents about their particular concerns and be prepared to address safety concerns.Study strengths included the use of a nationally representative sample and the ability to analyze trends using data frequently collected since the beginning of the pandemic. Limitations included: generalizability of online panel data (although UAS recruitment methods and use of survey weights in analyses should mitigate this bias), insufficient sample sizes for certain racial and ethnic groups, and inability to determine if concern was higher or lower for specific childhood vaccines or the exact factors causing the observed rise in concern.We conclude that parent concern about the safety of routine childhood vaccines has increased nationally since the start of the pandemic.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2022-057855

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, M. D., Szilagyi, P. G., Shetgiri, R., Delgado, J. R., Vangala, S., Thomas, K., Dudovitz, R. N., Vizueta, N., Darling, J., & Kapteyn, A.
Affiliations
  • Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • cDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research and National Clinician Scholars Program
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Shah, Megha D.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2022-08-30
Volume
150
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W4285391307
Cited by
25
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2028683)
  • University of Southern California
  • Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance (UL1-TR001881)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001881)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01AG054580)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine misinformation, childhood immunization, vaccine side effects, vaccine effectiveness, vaccine safety, well-child visits, Understanding America Study, longitudinal trends, measles vaccine, varicella vaccine
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Humans, Parents, Vaccination, Vaccines, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review