[New forms of vaccine hesitancy in the post-COVID-19 era: a qualitative study]

This study analyzes the arguments underlying hesitation to receive any COVID-19 vaccine and how these discourses may have evolved throughout the pandemic.

An exploratory, descriptive qualitative study was conducted in 2021-2022 in the province of Granada (Spain). Data were collected through four semi-structured interviews and three focus groups using theoretical sampling with individuals who expressed hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. A thematic analysis was performed, leading to the development of a typology of vaccine-hesitant profiles.

Participants' narratives about the origin of the virus ranged from moderate interpretations to conspiratorial explanations, while COVID-19 was perceived either as a mild illness or as one exaggerated by the media. The overabundance of information encouraged reliance on alternative sources and personal experience as evidence. Hesitant arguments clustered around two domains: scientific-public health concerns (including doubts about vaccine effectiveness, accelerated approval processes, components, and potential adverse ef fects) and ethical-political concerns (such as bodily autonomy, stigma, implicit mandates, and sociopolitical polarization). Four profiles of hesitancy were identified: empowered, infoxicated, paralyzed and resistant. These profiles reflecting different levels of agency, uncertainty, and distrust toward scientific and governmental institutions.

The "neo-hesitancy" emerging around COVID-19 vaccines exhibits distinct features compared with "classical" vaccine hesitancy, incorporating a political dimension that undermines trust in health authorities and public health policies. Non-coercive, profile-specific strategies and transparent public communication that integrates scientific and community collaboration are recommended to strengthen preparedness for future health crises.