Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: questionnaire development and validation.

OBJECTIVES: Vaccine hesitancy presents one of the critical constraints in combating COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an instrument for measuring factors that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: The key constructs in the study instrument were factors that constitute the "3C" model of vaccine hesitancy: Confidence, Complacency and Convenience. Using a cross-sectional, online survey design, the 8-item COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Questionnaire was administered to a sample of 667 adult citizens of Serbia in December 2020. We used confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the model that assumes three latent variables. To ensure that the instrument measures the same constructs in different groups, the measurement invariance examination was conducted. To examine criterion validity, Spearman's correlation was applied to determine the association between the instrument total score and the single-item measuring the likelihood of getting vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis established the three-factor structure, with subscales fitting within the "3C" model of vaccine hesitancy comprising confidence, convenience and complacency. The full scalar invariance was found across gender, and the partial scalar invariance was achieved for the age, region and education level. A higher level of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with the lower likelihood to get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. CONCLUSION: Our scale is brief and consistent, maintaining a good fit across key socio-demographic subgroups. This result implies that the scale could be useful for quick assessment of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in various target populations.

Predictors of Clinical Inertia and Type 2 Diabetes: Assessment of Primary Care Physicians and Their Patients.

With the growing prevalence and complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, many patients fail to achieve treatment goals despite guidelines and possibilities for treatment individualization. One of the identified root causes of this failure is clinical inertia. We explored this phenomenon, its possible predictors, and groups of patients affected the most, together with offering potential paths for intervention. Our research was a cross-sectional study conducted during 2021 involving 52 physicians and 543 patients of primary healthcare institutions in Belgrade, Serbia. The research instruments were questionnaires based on similar studies, used to collect information related to the factors that contribute to developing clinical inertia originating in both physicians and patients. In 224 patients (41.3%), clinical inertia was identified in patients with poor overall health condition, long diabetes duration, and comorbidities. Studying the changes made to the treatment, most patients (53%) had their treatment adjustment more than a year ago, with 19.3% of patients changing over the previous six months. Moreover, we found significant inertia in the treatment of patients using modern insulin analogues. Referral to secondary healthcare institutions reduced the emergence of inertia. This assessment of primary care physicians and their patients pointed to the high presence of clinical inertia, with an overall health condition, comorbidities, diabetes duration, current treatment, last treatment change, glycosylated hemoglobin and fasting glucose measuring frequency, BMI, patient referral, diet adjustment, and physician education being significant predictors.