Global trends and correlates of covid-19 vaccination hesitancy: Findings from the icare study

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy

Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments

The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire is widely used in oncology to generate quality of life weights (utilities). The typical purpose is to inform health economic evaluation studies. The EQ-5D is generally suitable for this purpose; it has shown a reasonable degree of reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness in the majority of the available studies. In situations of doubt, combination with other quality-of-life instruments may be an option. The authors expect that the five-level version of the EQ-5D will gradually replace the three-level version, due to reduced ceiling effects and more appropriate responsiveness. Further research should address the benefits achievable through additional dimensions or patient-based valuation, and the validity of EQ-5D versions for proxy respondents