Clara Gitahy Falcão Faria1*†‡
Ursula Medeiros Araujo de Matos1†‡
Liana Llado-Medina2†‡
Victor Pereira-Sanchez3,4,5,6‡
Rafael Freire1,7‡
Antonio Egidio Nardi1‡
- 1Laboratory of Panic and Respiration, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 2School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico, Bayamón, Puerto Rico
- 3Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
- 4Division of Translational Epidemiology and Mental Health Equity, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, United States
- 5Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
- 6Department of Psychiatry, Amoud University, Borama, Somalia
- 7Department of Psychiatry and Center for Neuroscience Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
Despite the speedy development of vaccines for COVID-19, their rollout has posed a major public health challenge, as vaccine hesitancy (VH) and refusal are high. Addressing vaccine hesitancy is a multifactorial and context-dependent challenge. This perspective focuses on VH in the world region of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and includes people suffering from severe mental illness, therefore covering populations and subpopulations often neglected in scientific literature. We present an overview of VH in LAC countries, discussing its global and historical context. Vaccine uptake has shown to widely vary across different subregions of LAC. Current data points to a possible correlation between societal polarization and vaccination, especially in countries going through political crises such as Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. Poor accessibility remains an additional important factor decreasing vaccination rollout in LAC countries and even further, in the whole Global South. Regarding patients with severe mental illness in LAC, and worldwide, it is paramount to include them in priority groups for immunization and monitor their vaccination coverage through public health indicators.
Introduction
Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in March 2020, the outbreak has brought an unparalleled public health crisis. Initially, different preventive efforts varying in strictness and enforcement were adopted in response to it: physical distancing, lockdowns (1), canceling elective procedures (2), and redeployment of health care professionals (3). However, implementing and sustaining those measures to their full extent proved to be a significant challenge (1), and the development of a safe and affordable vaccine soon became a vital need. Scientific efforts were carried out with unprecedented speed and global coordination and investment, and by the end of 2020 there were 240 vaccines in development, with 9 in final stages of testing (4).
Despite the rapid development and approval of vaccines, their rollout has posed another significant challenge, as vaccine hesitancy (VH) and refusal are high in part of the general public (5), reaching as high as 40% in Russia and 26% in France as of January 2021 (6, 7). Besides vaccine availability, in order to reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, a high vaccine uptake is necessary to reach herd immunity (8). Experience from previous pandemics and public health emergencies shows that addressing VH is a multifactorial and context-dependent challenge that must be addressed simultaneously at global, regional, and national levels (8–11).
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is a world region home to a vast and young portion of the world population spread around many different low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) that largely share cultural roots, language, and religious beliefs in a unique way. Its demographic and cultural characteristics, the actual, devastating and unequal impact of the pandemic in LAC countries (12), and the traditional marginalization of this world region in scientific literature, dominated by Anglo-Saxon and high-income countries, provides a need and an opportunity to explore the state and challenges of vaccine rollout there, and a discussion of the unique cultural, religious, and mental health aspects associated to VH in this region. In this perspective paper, a group of mental health clinicians and researchers in the Americas present an overview of attitudes and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines in general and in LAC countries, discussing its global and historical context. We will also address the cultural and religious factors contributing to the current scenario and particularly, as concerning people living with mental illness. Furthermore, we will outline potential strategies to improve vaccination intention (VI) and public trust in the LAC region.
Vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccine culture before and during COVID-19
VH is not a new phenomenon (13), rather it has been described since the inception of vaccines in the 1870s in England (13). In the USA, the anti-vaccination movement and a state government clashed in the landmark case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which ruled that the state could mandate vaccination by law in order to protect the population (13). Similarly to the strategy being adopted by some countries today, in the nineteenth century many vaccination mandates were imposed in order to contain smallpox outbreaks (14). Those measures sparked resistance from liberal sectors of society which argued that they constituted a violation of civil liberties (15). Nowadays, anti-vaccination activism poses an even larger resistance as it harnesses powerful platforms able to reach big audiences worldwide, since the internet has become a major source of health information for the public (16, 17).
It is important to conceptualize the contemporary anti-vaccination movement as a spectrum of beliefs and concerns rather than a two-dimensional concept (18). Studies analyzing the vaccine hesitancy movement before COVID-19 show that VH is often demonstrated by postponing vaccines and increasing the delay between doses rather than complete refusal, which represents a smaller percentage of the anti-vaccination movement (18).
Culturally, before COVID-19 era, two main factors influenced VH: first, the fact that for a long time the diseases that vaccines prevented were largely unknown to the population (18, 19) thanks to the success of previous vaccination rollouts, therefore resulting in a low perceived benefit of vaccines when compared to the perceived risks. The trend that has been observed by public health specialists is that as an outbreak of a preventable disease occurs, vaccination rates improve (18). Secondly, highly publicized research that was later retracted led to a major public backlash against vaccines, as it falsely related the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines to autism (20, 21). When it came to COVID-19, even before a vaccine was available, the terms “mercury” and “autism” were widely popular Google searches in association with the upcoming vaccine (22).
Furthermore, there is a group where VH data is particularly lacking: mental health patients. Recent studies (23–25) have shown that people experiencing severe mental health conditions are more likely to face longer hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and suffer worse outcomes and mortality rates, thus making it necessary to prioritize their vaccination and further explore VH in this group. Although VH has been widely explored in the general population and the development of the COVID-19 vaccine has been widely covered by the media, there have not been peer-reviewed studies exploring how the anti-vaccination movement affects people with severe mental illness, specifically those who experience persecutory delusions (24, 25). Recently, one study in the UK looked at the relationships of mental health diagnosis and symptoms of mental distress with VH in a general population sample and found no association (23). However, there is no data on community-based or in patient samples, which could potentially reveal a very different scenario.
Strategies to increase vaccination uptake
One of the most defended strategies to increase vaccination coverage consists of increasing government's commitment and transparency toward health policies and promoting social economic growth for the society at large (26). This might be very effective in the long term, as it decreases mistrust from the population toward pharmaceutical and governmental organizations. However, the implementation of these measures would not address the problem promptly, and it requires profound structural changes in governmental and health systems all over the globe, particularly in underdeveloped nations, where poor health access and social inequalities are important barriers to vaccine uptake.
Among short-term strategies, those that tackle misinformation are of uttermost importance. Governments and health organizations should focus on conveying the message that vaccines are effective and safe while demonstrating the competence and reliability of the institutions that deliver them (27). However, recent research has shown that combating fake news and providing more information is not sufficient to change behavior (28). One of the factors that was shown to influence negatively on VH is a poor relationship with healthcare providers, pointing out to the importance of the rapport between patients and healthcare professionals (29). Moreover, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, for the pharmaceutical industry and health and government authorities the emphasis should be to prove and convey that no developmental or regulatory corners were cut in the development and approval process, which were facilitated by extensive prior research, unprecedented levels of international collaboration among researchers, and massive public investment in research, development and manufacturing capacity.
Since the start of the pandemic, the mortality risk in patients who have suffered from COVID-19 has been studied. It has been found that, in individuals who were recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines there was a lower mortality risk that in unvaccinated comparison groups. After these comparison groups were analyzed and stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, they still showed a lower mortality in vaccinated adults compared to non-vaccinated adults. Therefore, the lower mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination implies that there are beneficial vaccine effects on these individuals. Additionally, hospitalized individuals due to COVID-19 were less likely to have an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (30). Spreading evidence based information is one potential way to increase vaccination uptake (31).
Vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccine culture in Latin America and the Caribbean
In LAC countries vaccine uptake is heterogeneous and immunization rates are prone to vary across different subregions (32–37). The extent to which people believe in COVID-19 conspiracy theories varies significantly across LAC countries as well as by socio-demographic characteristics (36). For instance, VI in Trinidad and Tobago was estimated at 62.8%, which largely contrasts with other countries such as Cuba, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil, which have the highest number of administered doses per 100 habitants (34).
Some authors have suggested that a country's resilience to misinformation and conspiracy theories depends on several political and economic indicators such as the level of societal polarization, the amount of populist and partisan communication, the strength of public service media, and the adoption of social media (38–41). When it comes to LAC, many countries indeed confront higher societal polarization, besides from having weaker public service media systems compared to other Western nations. Many countries in LAC such as Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia are undergoing intense economic and political crises, which are driving social division. Even though more research is warranted, current data points to a possible negative correlation between societal polarization and vaccination uptake in those nations. For instance, in Brazil, Ebeling et al. found that anti/pro COVID-19 vaccination stances are biased by political polarization, right and left, respectively (42).
In terms of other social, demographic, and cultural aspects, research indicates several risk factors to VH, with heterogeneity across studies. For instance, religion, healthcare access barriers, being part of a more conservative political party, and low education levels have been shown to have a positive correlation with VH (33–37). Age and gender also presented with divergent results across different studies: Urrunaga-Pastor et al. (9) found increased age to be protective, whilst other studies found it to be a risk factor. De Coninck et al. (38) correlated increased age with less misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, while Puri et al. (26) found older age as one of the risk factors for vulnerability for social media appeals. Regarding gender, some studies have put male gender as a risk factor for VH, however findings are contradictory, with other studies pointing to female gender as a risk factor (9).
Discussion
Overall, VH has been shown to be influenced by (1) lack of confidence, which is the lack of trust in the vaccine or provider, (2) complacency, which is the perception that there is no value or a need for a vaccine, and (3) lack of convenience, which refers to the perceived lack of access or services toward vaccination. COVID-19 VH can be explained by a combination of both underlying issues common to VH in general, as well as to the public's particular concerns specific to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (34, 35). Mistrust and misinformation are among the main reasons for missed vaccinations. Many individuals, mainly those who have been historically marginalized in their home countries, may find it difficult to trust their government, health system, and the pharmaceutical industry. Limited access to evidence-based information combined with social media spread of inaccurate yet appealing narratives can further propagate misinformation and fear, thus ramping up immunization refusal (32).
On the other hand, fear appraisal strategies have been used for health promotion for many years. It is understood that even though fear can change current behavior, it cannot produce a long lasting and real change. For instance, people can get vaccinated for COVID-19 due to extensive fear-promoting propaganda or governmental pressure, but they will not be truly aware of the importance of vaccination (38, 39). Currently, refusal occurs in many cases due to fear toward vaccines'—mainly COVID RNA vaccines—safety. As opposed to fear-promotion, empathetic information delivery strategies that address public's fears could be more effective and sustainable in promoting long lasting change.
Moreover, besides mistrust and misinformation, campaigns hampered up by the anti-vaccination movement, which are commonplace worldwide, healthcare and vaccine access are huge challenges in LAC, as some countries as Venezuela, for example, are facing severe political crises (33, 43). Others, such as Peru, face deep inequalities with some sectors of society receiving the vaccine before the rest of the population based on socioeconomic advantage rather than medical priority (44). However, some countries, such as Brazil, had a mostly successful vaccination rollout, maintaining a low VH rate: in a survey conducted with 173,000 participants VH was around 10.5% (45). Brazil is an interesting case study as, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the country already had an established successful national public immunization program rolling for 46 years, despite its many inequalities (46). It has been suggested that, despite a conservative government in power repeatedly accused of spreading misinformation about vaccines, VH in Brazil is still low due to the country's longstanding history of immunization thanks to the massive investment over decades in the Brazilian National Immunization Program. In summary, the VH landscape in LAC is highly heterogeneous and still understudied (34, 35, 37).
In addition, there is a group needing urgent attention not only in LAC countries but also worldwide when it comes to vaccination intention and hesitancy: individuals with severe mental illness. This is a particularly big challenge in the LAC context, as many countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru are facing the challenge to provide treatment for a growing number of patients while transitioning to a community-based care model, and face shortage of mental health services provision in the community (47, 48). It is also important to highlight that many people with severe mental illness in LAC are socially marginalized and face many difficulties in terms of access to health and social services. There seems to be no research looking into the factors that influence vaccination uptake in patients living with a mental illness, however, an important factor in the general population is the rapport with the main healthcare provider, as previously discussed (31). This research gap is even more appalling since people with severe mental health disorders are at higher risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 and have increased COVID-19 associated mortality rates, as also previously mentioned (24–26). Especially for a population group facing difficulties to access healthcare in general, we suggest that mental health practitioners should play a pivotal role in the understanding and addressing of their VH and uptake.
Strategies to increase vaccination coverage in LAC, especially in patients with severe mental illness
Besides delivering transparent, trustworthy, and empathetic information to the public and encouraging active demand for vaccination, facilitating health service access can contribute to the number of immunizations of those individuals that are not opposed to the vaccine, but also will not actively seek immunization, following the public health principle of “making healthy choices, easy choices” (49). Poor accessibility remains an important factor that decreases vaccination coverage in LAC countries and even further, in the whole Global South (50). Regarding patients with severe mental illness in Latin America and the Caribbean and worldwide, it is necessary to transform them into priority groups for immunization and monitor their vaccination coverage through public health indicators. One possible strategy is to partner with community mental health centers and inpatient units, making vaccination more accessible to those marginalized groups.
Conclusion
Our perspective identified a major research gap in terms of VH in LAC populations, including people with severe mental illness. Further work is needed to develop region and country-based strategies to increase immunization rates tailored to common and unique socio-cultural factors. Regarding LAC, the VH landscape is highly heterogeneous. Among the factors that are believed to contribute to a decreased vaccination coverage in LAC countries, we can name unequal access, mainly in rural areas; political and socio-economic crisis; societal polarization; and misinformation propagated by social media paired with poor access to evidence-based health information.
To summarize, the COVID-19 vaccination process is one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. In order to achieve the global health agenda of increased vaccination coverage, no marginalized group should be left behind. We would like to strongly emphasize the need for further investment in research in VH and associated factors in LMIC populations, including all of LAC, and especially including people with severe mental health illness.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
CF, UM, and LL-M created the concept of the manuscript, conducted the literature review, and wrote it. VP-S helped create the concept of the manuscript, supervised all steps of the work, and reviewed the manuscript draft. RF and AN provided guidance and supervision, and proofread the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and assumed their responsibility as coauthors.
Funding
Funds from Cnpq (Brazilian National Council for Scientific Development) have been granted to cover article processing fees for open access publication of this work.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The Handling Editor SE declared a past co-authorship/collaboration with the Author VP-S.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Cash R, Patel V. Has COVID-19 subverted global health? Lancet. (2020) 395:1687–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31089-8
2. Truche P, Campos LN, Marrazzo EB, Rangel AG, Bernardino R, Bowder AN, et al. Association between government policy and delays in emergent and elective surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: a modeling study. Lancet Reg Health Am. (2021) 3:100056. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2021.100056
3. San Juan NV, Clark SE, Camilleri M, Jeans JP, Monkhouse A, Chisnall G, et al. Training and redeployment of healthcare workers to intensive care units (ICUs) during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMJ Open. (2022) 12:e050038. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050038
4. Haque A, Pant AB. Efforts at COVID-19 vaccine development: challenges and successes. Vaccines. (2020) 8:739. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8040739
5. Feleszko W, Lewulis P, Czarnecki A, Waszkiewicz P. Flattening the curve of COVID-19 vaccine rejection-an international overview. Vaccines. (2021) 9:44. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9010044
6. Lazarus JV, Ratzan SC, Palayew A, Gostin LO, Larson HJ, Rabin K, et al. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. (2021) 27:225–8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9
7. COCONEL Group. A future vaccination campaign against COVID-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation. Lancet Infect Dis. (2020) 20:769–70. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30426-6
8. Schaffer DeRoo S, Pudalov NJ, Fu LY. Planning for a COVID-19 vaccination program. JAMA. (2020) 323:2458–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8711
9. Urrunaga-Pastor D, Bendezu-Quispe G, Herrera-Añazco P, Uyen-Cateriano A, Toro-Huamanchumo CJ, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 vaccine intention, perceptions and hesitancy across Latin America and the Caribbean. Travel Med Infect Dis. (2021) 41:102059. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102059
10. PAHO (Pan American Health Organization). Health and the economy: A convergence needed to address COVID-19 and retake the path of sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean (2020). Available online at: https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/45841-health-and-economy-convergence-needed-address-covid-19-and-retake-path
11. Ruiz JB, Bell RA. Predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: results of a nationwide survey. Vaccine. (2021) 39:1080–6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.010
12. Bottan N, Hoffmann B, Vera-Cossio D. The unequal impact of the coronavirus pandemic: evidence from seventeen developing countries. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15:e0239797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239797
13. Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev Vaccines. (2015) 14:99–117. doi: 10.1586/14760584.2015.964212
15. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Could it happen here? Vaccine risk controversies and the specter of derailment. Health Aff. (2005) 24:729–39. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.3.729
16. McDaid D, Park LA. Online Health: Untangling the Web. Available online at: www.bupa.com/healthpulse (accessed February 5, 2022).
17. Gangarosa EJ, Galazka AM, Wolfe CR, Phillips LM, Miller E, Chen RT, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet. (1998) 351:356–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1
18. McClure CC, Cataldi JR, O'Leary ST. Vaccine hesitancy: where we are and where we are going. Clin Ther. (2017) 39:1550–62. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.07.003
19. Salmon DA, Dudley MZ, Glanz JM, Omer SB. Vaccine hesitancy: causes, consequences, and a call to action. Am J Prev Med. (2015) 49(Suppl. 4):S391–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.06.009
20. Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med. (2011) 364:97–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1010594
21. Flaherty DK. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann Pharmacother. (2011) 45:1302–4. doi: 10.1345/aph.1Q318
22. Pullan S, Dey M. Vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccination in the time of COVID-19: a Google Trends analysis. Vaccine. (2021) 39:1877–81. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.019
23. Batty GD, Deary IJ, Altschul D. Pre-pandemic mental and physical health as predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: evidence from a UK-wide cohort study. Ann Med. (2022) 54:274–82. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2027007
24. Batty GD, Deary IJ, Luciano M, Altschul DM, Kivimäki M, Gale CR, et al. Psychosocial factors and hospitalisations for COVID-19: prospective cohort study based on a community sample. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 89:569–78. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.06.021
25. Mazereel V, Van Assche K, Detraux J, De Hert M. COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental illness: why, what, and how? Lancet Psychiatry. (2021) 8:444–50. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30564-2
26. Puri N, Coomes EA, Haghbayan H, Gunaratne K. Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Hum Vaccin Immunother. (2020) 16:2586–93. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846
27. Guzman-Holst A, DeAntonio R, Prado-Cohrs D, Juliao P. Barriers to vaccination in Latin America: a systematic literature review. Vaccine. (2022) 38:470–81. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.088
28. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2012) 13:106–31. doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018
29. Ames HM, Glenton C, Lewin S. Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2017) 2:CD011787. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011787.pub2
30. Tenforde MW, Self WH, Adams K, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, McNeal T, et al. Association between mRNA vaccination and COVID-19 hospitalization and disease severity. JAMA. (2021) 326:2043–54. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.19499
31. Xu S. COVID-19 vaccination non–COVID-19 mortality risk — seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. MMWR Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep. (2021) 70:1520–4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7043e2
32. Benítez MA, Velasco C, Sequeira AR, Henríquez J, Menezes FM, Paolucci F. Responses to covid-19 in five Latin American countries. Health Policy Technol. (2020) 9:525–59. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.014
33. Burki T. COVID-19 in Latin America. Lancet Infect Dis. (2020) 20:547–8. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30303-0
34. Freitas LD, Basdeo D, Wang HI. Public Trust, information sources and vaccine willingness related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago: an online cross-sectional survey. Lancet Reg Health Am. (2021) 3:100051. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2021.100051
35. Acosta LD. Response capacity to the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America and the Caribbean. Rev Panam Salud Publica. (2020) 44:e109. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2020.109
36. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Franco OH. Public Trust, misinformation and covid-19 vaccination willingness in Latin America and the Caribbean: today's key challenges. Lancet Reg Health Am. (2021) 3:100073. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2021.100073
37. Argote P, Barham E, Daly SZ, Gerez JE, Marshall J, Pocasangre O. The shot, the message, and the Messenger: Covid-19 vaccine acceptance in Latin America. NPJ Vaccines. (2021) 6:118. doi: 10.1038/s41541-021-00380-x
38. De Coninck D, Frissen T, Matthijs K, d'Haenens L, Lits G, Champagne-Poirier O, et al. Beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19: comparative perspectives on the role of anxiety, depression and exposure to and trust in information sources. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:646394. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646394
39. Bendau A, Plag J, Petzold MB, Ströhle A. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and related fears and anxiety. Int Immunopharmacol. (2021) 97:107724. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107724
40. Miller JM. Psychological, political, and situational factors combine to boost COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Can J Political Sci. (2020) 53:327–34. doi: 10.1017/S000842392000058X
41. Miller BL. Science denial and COVID conspiracy theories: potential neurological mechanisms and possible responses. JAMA. (2020) 324:2255–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21332
42. Ebeling R, Sáenz CA, Nobre J, Becker K. The effect of political polarization on social distance stances in the Brazilian covid-19 scenario. J Inform Data Manag. (2021) 121:96–106. doi: 10.5753/jidm.2021.1889
43. OECD. Access to COVID 19 Vaccines: Global Approaches in a Global Crisis. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris (2021).
44. McDonnell PJ, León A. ‘Vaccine-gate’ roils peru: politicians, families and friends secretly got COVID shots. Los Angeles Times (2021). Available online at: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-18/peru-vaccine-gate-politicians-diplomatsreceived-chinese-vaccine (accessed February 27, 2022).
45. Moore DC, Nehab MF, Camacho KG, Reis AT, de Fátima Junqueira-Marinho M, Abramov DM, et al. Low COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Brazil. Vaccine. (2021) 39:6262–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.013
46. Domingues CM, Maranhão AG, Teixeira AM, Fantinato FF, Domingues RA. 46 anos do Programa Nacional de Imunizações: uma história repleta de conquistas e desafios a serem superados. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. (2020) 36(Suppl. 2):2–10. doi: 10.1590/0102-311x00222919
47. Cubillos L, Muñoz J, Caballero J, Mendoza M, Pulido A, Carpio K, et al. Addressing severe mental illness rehabilitation in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru. Psychiatr Serv. (2020) 71:378–84. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900306
48. Minoletti A, Galea S, Susser E. Community mental health services in Latin America for people with severe mental disorders. Public Health Rev. (2012) 34:13. doi: 10.1007/BF03391681
49. Koelen M, Lindström B. Making healthy choices, easy choices: the role of empowerment. Eur J Clin Nutr. (2005) 59:S10–16. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602168
Keywords: vaccine hesitancy, severe mental illness, mental health, COVID-19, Latin America and the Caribbean
Citation: Faria CGF, Matos UMAd, Llado-Medina L, Pereira-Sanchez V, Freire R and Nardi AE (2022) Understanding and addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in low and middle income countries and in people with severe mental illness: Overview and recommendations for Latin America and the Caribbean. Front. Psychiatry 13:910410. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.910410
Received: 01 April 2022; Accepted: 22 August 2022;
Published: 13 September 2022.
Edited by:
Samer El Hayek, Shezlong, EgyptReviewed by:
Chinwe Ezeokoli-Ashraph, North West Regional Health Authority, Trinidad and TobagoConsuelo Ponce De Leon, University of the Andes, Chile
Copyright © 2022 Faria, Matos, Llado-Medina, Pereira-Sanchez, Freire and Nardi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Clara Gitahy Falcão Faria, claragitahy@gmail.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
‡ORCID: Clara Gitahy Falcão Faria orcid.org/0000-0002-1290-2349
Ursula Medeiros Araujo de Matos orcid.org/0000-0001-7074-2905
Liana Llado-Medina orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-2318
Victor Pereira-Sanchez orcid.org/0000-0002-2576-1549
Rafael Freire orcid.org/0000-0003-3875-4601
Antonio Egidio Nardi orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-4669