Assessing the level and determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in Kenya

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was declared a pandemic on the 11^th of March 2020 with the first case in Kenya confirmed on the 12^th. As of June 4^th, 2021, there have been 171,658 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 3,223 deaths in Kenya [1]. To control the pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been put in place in Kenya, as in other settings, to slow down the transmission of the virus thus averting COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. These measures have ranged from physical distancing measures, movement restrictions, closure of schools, sanitation measures, testing, and wearing of face masks in public places. These NPIs also have potential indirect effects that are multifaceted including slow economic growth, financial hardships, reduced access to essential health services, food insecurity, gendered impacts, and widening inequality in access to education [2,3]. Given the indirect effects that these NPIs present and based on risk assessments, they have been implemented with different intensities over time in Kenya [3].

Vaccines are a key intervention in the response against the COVID-19 pandemic, with the potential to protect populations from infection, severe disease and death, and block transmission from infected to uninfected people. The development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have thus been prioritized [4]. As of 2^nd May 2021, there were about 275 vaccine candidates in clinical development, the majority of which are in the pre-clinical stages (67%) [5]. There are about 91 vaccines in clinical trials and 6 vaccines approved for emergency use. [5,6].

The government of Kenya plans to vaccinate 50% of all adult populations by end of June 2022 in a phased approach while maintaining a prioritization matrix. As a result, Kenya launched the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination procured through the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX) in March 2021 [7]. The vaccination is being rolled out progressively with the prioritized population being: 1)Essential workers (including healthcare providers, teachers, security personnel) which is an estimated 1.25 million Kenyans 2) Individuals at risk of severe disease including older adults (58 years and above) and those above 18 years with co-morbidities – which targets 9.76 million Kenyans 3) Individuals at high risk of infection such as people 18 years and above in congregate settings, as well as the hospitality and tourism industry – targeting 4.9 million Kenyans [7]. As of June 4^th, 2021, there were 969,561 COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in Kenya [1].

Evidence suggests that for herd immunity to be attained, about 60-70% of the population would need to receive the COVID-19 vaccine [8,9]. However, one major barrier to achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is vaccine hesitancy; defined as the refusal or delay in acceptance of vaccines, despite their availability [10]. It lies across a spectrum between total acceptance and total refusal [10]. In sub-Saharan Africa, studies suggests that some of the reasons of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy include, negative perceptions of the pharmaceutical industries, concerns on vaccine safety and/or the source of the vaccine, lack of confidence in the government, and vaccine costs [11–14]. Vaccine hesitancy is however context-specific and varies across time and place [15]. Kenya reports a high vaccine confidence against childhood diseases, with 89% reporting vaccines as safe, 87% reporting them as being effective, and 97% perceived importance for childhood vaccination [16]. However, there is limited evidence and understanding of the public willingness to accept; and the confidence they place on the COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya, which mainly targets the adult population. This study, therefore, aims to determine the level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Kenya and report on its determinants.

METHODS

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics analyses

The socio-demographic characteristics of the 4,136 respondents who participated in this study are shown in Table 2. The mean age of the respondents was 40.8 years (SD 12.6) and the average household size of the respondents was 7.5 (SD 4.4). Most of the respondents were female (67.2%), residents of rural counties (56.0%), married (72.7%), had either no schooling or primary school level education) as the highest education level (70.7%), and were from the lowest wealth tertile (36.7%).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics by county

Among the respondents, the amount participants were willing to pay for the vaccine (if it was not available for free) was reported at USD 3.23 (KES 323.06 (SD 1407.69)) and the overall reported hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine was 60.6% (n=2,507). The overall level of vaccine hesitancy and across the counties is illustrated in figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Level of Vaccine Hesitancy Across Study Counties

DISCUSSION

This study set out to evaluate the level and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Kenya. We make several reflections from the findings. First, the overall level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy reported is high (60.61%), as compared to childhood vaccine acceptance in Kenya: Specifically, reported perceived childhood vaccine safety, effectiveness, and relative importance of common childhood vaccines is greater than 87% in Kenya [16]. This highlights the need for the Kenyan government to prioritize interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine confidence as part of its vaccine roll-out plan; examine the socio-demographic factors, individual effects and perceived risks, context, and vaccine-specific issues that affect vaccine hesitancy. This level of hesitancy is consistent with findings elsewhere. For instance, a survey done across 19 countries reported 71.5% of the respondents were very likely or somewhat likely to accept an available COVID-19 vaccine that is proven safe and effective, with differences in vaccine acceptance ranging from 90% in China to 55% in Russia [23]. In sub-Saharan Africa, surveys have reported 84.6% of Cameroonians, 52% of South Africans, and 50% of Zimbabweans to be hesitant or would reject the COVID-19 vaccine [13,24,25].

Second, demographic and socio-economic factors that determine vaccine hesitancy include age, level of education, and socio-economic status. In contrast to some studies [22,26–28], we report a higher likelihood of vaccine hesitancy between those of a higher age group (36-57 years) as compared to younger people (18-35 years). However, our findings align with some settings such as Ireland, where those aged 35-44 years were more likely to be vaccine hesitant or resistant than accepting [27]. Consistent with other studies a higher level of education was associated with less likelihood of vaccine hesitancy [26,28]. Findings on socio-economic status are mixed, with individuals in the 2^nd tertile less likely to be hesitant and those in the 3^rd tertile being more hesitant, when compared to those in the 1^st tertile. However, with the exception of the rural pastoralist site, income was not associated with vaccine hesitancy. Other studies reported less vaccine hesitancy among higher income groups [13,27]. These findings illustrate variations among certain sub-groups in the population and hence the need for focussed messaging and campaigns aimed at specific target groups that are more likely to be vaccine hesitant.

Third, attitudes and level of compliance with other NPI COVID-19 measures appear to be associated with hesitancy. For example, those who reported difficulty in adhering to government regulations regarding COVID-19 prevention, reported wearing face masks less often now than when the pandemic started were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Other studies have also reported an increased likelihood of vaccine hesitancy amongst those who are less adherent to measures put in place to control COVID-19 [29]. Reduced adherence could also be linked with reduced trust in institutions or government. Findings from a global survey found that those who reported having trust in their governments were less likely to be vaccine hesitant [28]. This finding highlights the need for public health messaging of vaccination to be holistic and include information about the value of other public health measures. As vaccine rollout in Kenya may take some time, NPI preventive measures must continue to avoid a resurgence of infections.

Fourth, individuals perceived risk of COVID-19 and its impact on their lives and livelihood also determined their level of hesitancy. For instance, those who had tested for COVID-19 previously, and those who had experienced substantial socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 were less likely to be hesitant. This finding is similar to findings in Saudi Arabia and France, where individuals with an increased perceived risk of COVID-19 were less likely to be vaccine hesitant [22,26]. This underlines the need to raise awareness about the consequences and risks of COVID-19 and to effectively communicate the value of vaccines.

Fifth, consistent with other studies, those who had concerns over COVID-19 vaccines’ side-effects and effectiveness were more likely to be vaccine hesitant [26,28–30]. This highlights the prevailing environment where there is heightened concern about the effectiveness and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings emphasize the importance of a holistic, dynamic, transparent, and consistent public health messaging in improving vaccine hesitancy. Attention should be placed on building trust in the vaccine [31,32]. Additionally, reassurance of the capabilities of the regulatory bodies in ensuring safety and effectiveness should be emphasized [28]. This should be accompanied by open access, real time safety data at a national and regional level, and risk-based assessments that inform decision making.

This study focused on one dimension of access, namely acceptability. However, we recognize that other dimensions of access such as the availability of COVID-19 vaccines ensured through procurement and supply-side factors, and the affordability of the vaccines need to be considered over and above vaccine hesitancy as we aim to achieve herd-immunity, and the control of the pandemic. Further, this study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from existing Population Council cohorts whose households all have adolescents. Therefore, the sample is not representative of the four counties included in this study and the results are not generalizable to the full population. Second, the study was cross-sectional and reflects the level and determinants of vaccine hesitancy, as of February 2021. This was before the actual COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Kenya that started in March 2021. Conducting a longitudinal study would have provided more information on the change in vaccine hesitancy and its drivers, which could also inform the tailoring of messages over time. Third, there is also a need for qualitative studies to further explore the drivers and deterrents of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the factors that may improve or compound COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Despite these reported weaknesses, the study provides important insights on the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in certain locations of Kenya and provides implications to policymakers on possible avenues of improving vaccine hesitancy in Kenya.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight that almost one year into the pandemic and about a month before vaccine rollout had begun in Kenya, vaccine hesitancy was quite high. As the current vaccine rollout plan will take time, there is also a need to promote holistic public health messaging to ensure that NPI interventions such as face masks, hand washing, physical distancing, and hand sanitizer use continue. These behaviours are tied to vaccine hesitancy and confidence, clearly linking the two and the need for cohesive messaging campaigns. We find significant variation by socio-demographics and perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and economic impacts; tailored messages may be required to reach those with different concerns, levels of education, and other factors. Lastly, there is a critical need for accurate and transparent information from trusted sources to combat misinformation particularly around vaccine side effects and effectiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A., T.A., E.B., M.H., J.P. and G.W.; formal analysis, S.O.; methodology, E.B., S.O., J.P., and D.M.; validation, T.A., M.H., G.W., K.A., and E.B.; investigation, J.P., D.M., T.A., and K.A.; data curation, D.M., J.P., and S.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.O.; writing—review and editing, E.B., J.P., D.M., T.A., M.H., G.W., and K.A.; visualization, S.O., J.P., D.M., T.A., M.H., G.W., K.A., and E.B.; supervision, K.A., and E.B.; funding acquisition, K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Innovations for Poverty Action, the University of California San Diego, the Kenya Executive Office of the President Policy and Strategy Unit, and UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Population Council (protocol code 936) and AMREF-Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (protocol P803/2020)

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study