ABSTRACT
Purpose@#This cross-sectional study aimed to identify factors affecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intention. @*Methods@#For an anonymous online survey, recruitment notices were posted on an anonymous community by each university, and an online survey was conducted through online form from June to July 2021. COVID-19 knowledge and health-protective behavior were measured using a questionnaire based on previous literature and reflecting the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Guidelines. The psychological antecedents of vaccination were measured by 5C scale. @*Results@#Two-hundred and ninety-four college students (women 67.3%) answered the survey; 179 (60.9%) reported that they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. The mean scores for COVID-19 knowledge and health-protective behavior were 22.97 ± 5.33 (out of 35) and 9.92 ± 2.22 (out of 12), respectively. For the psychological antecedents of vaccination, the mean scores for confidence, collective responsibility, calculation, complacency, and constraints were 4.45 ( ± 1.24), 5.61 ( ± 1.09), 5.09 ( ± 1.18), 2.42 ( ± 1.11), and 2.37 ( ± 1.19) out of 5 points, respectively. The confidence, calculation, and collective responsibility were associated with vaccination intention. Additionally, the top reason for those who were less prone to accept vaccination against COVID-19 was concern about vaccine safety. @*Conclusion@#The higher the confidence in the vaccine and the higher the collective responsibility, the higher the vaccination intention. As it is a factor related to an individual’s perception of COVID-19 information, it is necessary to increase confidence in the vaccines through obtaining accurate information on the safety, effectiveness, and side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical usefulness of voice analysis to predict the risk of aspiration. METHOD: The patient population consisted of 93 patients undergoing video fluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) to evaluate the risk of aspiration. The voice analyses were performed before and after VFSS using a portable recorder and voice analysis. The parameters included Average Fundamental Frequency (Fo), Relative Average Perturbation (RAP), Shimmer Percent, Noise to Harmonic Ratio (NHR), and Voice Turbulence Index. RESULTS: The patients were divided into two groups accord ing to VFSS findings, non-aspiration group (including patients without vocal cord contact) and aspiration group (including patients with vocal cord contact). In comparing the differences of acoustic parameters before and after VFSS, all parameters except Fo were significantly different (p<0.05). When the cut-off point was set to 0.3, the RAP was the most significant parameter given that the sensitivity was 0.911 and the specificity was 0.979. Combining RAP and NHR, the sensitivity was 1.000 and the specificity was 0.771. CONCLUSION: Voice analysis is a very convenient and effective diagnostic tool in clinically evaluating the risk of aspiration.