Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in women of reproductive age: A social approach.
Anna Hornbach, Katelyn M Tessier, Sarah Westberg and 1 others
PMID 41997091WHAT IT FOUND
Women worried about vaccine effects on reproductive health were less likely to be vaccinated.
Knowing someone with pregnancy loss, infertility, or vaccine-linked menstrual changes was linked to higher hesitancy. Trusted provider information was linked to lower hesitancy, not uptake.
Key findings
01Participants worried about potential adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on their reproductive health or future pregnancies were significantly less likely to be vaccinated (n=40; 71.8% vs 94.1%, p <0.001).
02Participants whose worry was attributed to a partner's or relative's worry had significantly higher total VHS scores (34.0 vs 22.0, p =0.050) and lack of confidence scores (27.0 vs 15.0, p =0.035).
03Participants who used a healthcare provider as a trusted health information source had significantly lower total VHS scores (13.0 vs 16.5, p =0.018) and perceived risk scores (4.0 vs 6.0, p =0.010).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a convenience sample recruited at the Minnesota State Fair, so it may not represent all women of reproductive age in the United States. The design was cross-sectional and used self-report, so it cannot show that social media use, provider information, or personal connections caused vaccine hesitancy or vaccination. The sample was predominantly White (76.2%), highly educated (68.3% college graduates), highly vaccinated (91.3%), and excluded non-English speakers. Generalizability is limited. Some analyses used small subgroups, including n=18, n=22, n=30, n=39, n=40, n=49, n=54, and n=58, so power was limited. Very few participants did not use social media (n=19), which limits confidence in comparisons involving social media non-use. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied. Missing data were handled with pairwise deletion, so sample sizes may vary slightly across tests. The high vaccination rate may mean reported worries and hesitancy did not ultimately change acceptance.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest; individual disclosures state nothing to declare and no relevant conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that provider counseling, social media campaigns, or family conversations caused lower or higher vaccine hesitancy. The study is a cross-sectional survey of a highly vaccinated, mostly White and highly educated convenience sample, and it reports associations rather than tested effects.