IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i5p2944-d763016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing between Homologous or Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccination Regimens: A Cross-Sectional Study among the General Population in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Clari

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Alessandro Godono

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Beatrice Albanesi

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Elena Casabona

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Rosanna Irene Comoretto

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Ihab Mansour

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Alessio Conti

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Valerio Dimonte

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy
    Città Della Salute e Della Scienza University Hospital, 10126 Turin, Italy)

  • Catalina Ciocan

    (Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, Italy
    Città Della Salute e Della Scienza University Hospital, 10126 Turin, Italy)

Abstract

A shortage of COVID-19 vaccines and reports of side-effects led several countries to recommend a heterologous regimen for second vaccine doses. This study aimed to describe the reasons behind individuals’ choices of a homologous or a heterologous second vaccination. This cross-sectional study enrolled individuals under 60 who had received a first dose of Vaxzevria and could choose between a homologous or heterologous regimen for their second dose. Quantitative (socio-demographic, clinical characteristics) and qualitative data were collected and analysed through a generalized linear model and thematic analysis, respectively. Of the 1437 individuals included in the analysis, the majority (76.1%) chose a heterologous second dose of the COVID-19 vaccination. More females chose a heterologous vaccination regimen ( p = 0.003). Younger individuals also tended to choose heterologous vaccination ( p < 0.001). The main motivation in favour of heterologous vaccination was to follow the Italian Ministry of Health recommendations ( n = 118; 53.9%). This study showed that most individuals, mainly younger people and females, chose a heterologous dose of COVID-19 vaccination after their first viral vector vaccine. Heterologous vaccinations could be an effective public health measure to control the pandemic as they are a safe and efficient alternative to homologous regimens.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Clari & Alessandro Godono & Beatrice Albanesi & Elena Casabona & Rosanna Irene Comoretto & Ihab Mansour & Alessio Conti & Valerio Dimonte & Catalina Ciocan, 2022. "Choosing between Homologous or Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccination Regimens: A Cross-Sectional Study among the General Population in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2944-:d:763016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2944/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2944/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Sturgis & Ian Brunton-Smith & Jonathan Jackson, 2021. "Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1528-1534, November.
    2. Krishna Regmi & Cho Mar Lwin, 2021. "Factors Associated with the Implementation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Reducing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-27, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shockey, James W, 2021. "Social Aspects of COVID Mitigation," SocArXiv sgjvp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Niels G. Mede, 2022. "Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Philipp Lergetporer & Thomas Rittmannsberger, 2022. "How Does the Vaccine Approval Procedure Affect Covid-19 Vaccination Intentions?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9648, CESifo.
    4. Gearhart, Richard & Michieka, Nyakundi & Anders, Anne, 2023. "The effectiveness of COVID deaths to COVID policies: A robust conditional approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 376-394.
    5. Galdikiene, Laura & Jaraite, Jurate & Kajackaite, Agne, 2022. "Trust and vaccination intentions: Evidence from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-1.
    6. Ngo, Vu M. & Zimmermann, Klaus F. & Nguyen, Phuc V. & Huynh, Toan L.D. & Nguyen, Huan H., 2021. "How education and GDP drive the COVID-19 vaccination campaign," MERIT Working Papers 2021-046, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Zhe-Fei Mao & Qi-Wei Li & Yi-Ming Wang & Jie Zhou, 2024. "Pro-religion attitude predicts lower vaccination coverage at country level," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Rittmannsberger, Thomas, 2023. "How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Philipp Lergetporer & Thomas Rittmannsberger, 2022. "How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?," Munich Papers in Political Economy 20, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    10. Željko Pavić & Emma KovaÄ ević & Adrijana Å uljok & Juraj Jurlina & Maja MiÅ¡kulin & Aida Mujkić & Ivan MiÅ¡kulin, 2023. "The Deficit and Contextual Models of Vaccine Hesitancy: A Test of the Mediation Paths," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    11. Ricardo Muñoz-Cancino & Sebastian A. Rios & Marcel Goic & Manuel Graña, 2021. "Non-Intrusive Assessment of COVID-19 Lockdown Follow-Up and Impact Using Credit Card Information: Case Study in Chile," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Philipp Lergetporer & Thomas Rittmannsberger, 2022. "How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?," Working Papers 2022-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Naughtin, Claire & Hajkowicz, Stefan & Schleiger, Emma & Bratanova, Alexandra & Cameron, Alicia & Zamin, T & Dutta, A, 2022. "Our Future World: Global megatrends impacting the way we live over coming decades," MPRA Paper 113900, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Sajid Ullah & Farman Ullah Khan & Vanina Adoriana Trifan & Adina Eleonora Spinu & Grigorie Sanda, 2022. "Modeling Key Strategies for Reducing Socio-Economic and Health Crisis: Perspective from COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Jennifer Hanratty & Ciara Keenan & Sean R. O'Connor & Rachel Leonard & Yuan Chi & Janet Ferguson & Ariana Axiaq & Sarah Miller & Declan Bradley & Martin Dempster, 2023. "Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2944-:d:763016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.