Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(5): 1108-1114, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1782927

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Trust in healthcare providers is associated with important outcomes, but has primarily been assessed in the outpatient setting. It is largely unknown how hospitalized patients conceptualize trust in their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the dimensionality of a measure of trust in the inpatient setting. DESIGN: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients (N = 1756; 76% response rate) across six hospitals in the midwestern USA. The sample was randomly split such that approximately one half was used in the EFA, and the other half in the CFA. MAIN MEASURES: The Trust in Physician Scale, adapted for inpatient care. KEY RESULTS: Based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion and parallel analysis, EFAs were inconclusive, indicating that trust may be comprised of either one or two factors in this sample. In follow-up CFAs, a 2-factor model fit best based on a chi-squared difference test (Δχ2 = 151.48(1), p < .001) and a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) difference test (CFI difference = .03). The overall fit for the 2-factor CFA model was good (χ2 = 293.56, df = 43, p < .01; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .081 [90% confidence interval = .072-.090]; TLI = .93; SRMR = .04). Items loaded onto two factors related to cognitive (i.e., whether patients view providers as competent) and affective (i.e., whether patients view that providers care for them) dimensions of trust. CONCLUSIONS: While measures of trust in the outpatient setting have been validated as unidimensional, in the inpatient setting, trust appears to be composed of two factors: cognitive and affective trust. This provides initial evidence that inpatient providers may need to work to ensure patients see them as both competent and caring in order to gain their trust.


Subject(s)
Inpatients , Trust , Factor Analysis, Statistical , Humans , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(8)2022 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785709

ABSTRACT

Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are on the front lines of crises and emergencies, placing them at high risk of COVID-19 infection. A deeper understanding of the challenges facing first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to better support this important workforce. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic, asking about the impact of COVID-19. Data collected from our study interviews revealed that, despite large numbers of COVID-19 infections among the staff of police and fire departments, some-but not all-first responders were concerned about COVID-19. A similar divide existed within this group regarding whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Many first responders reported frustration over COVID-19 information because of inconsistencies across sources, misinformation on social media, and the impact of politics. In addition, first responders described increased stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by factors such as the fear of COVID exposure during emergency responses, concerns about infecting family members, and frustration surrounding new work policies. Our findings provide insight into the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and highlight the importance of providing resources for education about COVID-19 risks and vaccination, as well as for addressing first responders' mental health and well-being.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Responders , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Fear , Frustration , Humans , Pandemics
3.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(5): 2050105, 2022 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1774280

ABSTRACT

Reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy are multi-faceted and tend to differ from those for general vaccine hesitancy. We developed the COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Scale (CVCS), a self-report measure intended to better understand individuals' concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. We validated the scale using data from a convenience sample of 2,281 emergency medical services providers, a group of professionals with high occupational COVID-19 risk. Measures included the CVCS items, an adapted Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale, a general vaccine hesitancy scale, demographics, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status. The CVCS had high internal consistency reliability (α = .89). A one-factor structure was determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA), resulting in a seven-item scale. The model had good fit (X2[14] = 189.26, p < .001; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .11 [.09, .12], NNFI = .93, SRMR = .03). Moderate Pearson correlations with validated scales of general vaccine hesitancy (r = .71 , p < .001; n = 2144) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (r = .82; p < .001; n = 2279) indicated construct validity. The CVCS predicted COVID-19 vaccination status (B = -2.21, Exp(B) = .11 [95% CI = .09, .13], Nagelkerke R2 = .55), indicating criterion-related validity. In sum, the 7-item CVCS is a reliable and valid self-report measure to examine fears and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. The scale predicts COVID-19 vaccination status and can be used to inform efforts to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination
4.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(3)2022 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1715839

ABSTRACT

Some healthcare professionals, including emergency medical service (EMS) professionals, remain hesitant about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. This study sought to understand EMS professionals' perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using open-ended comments from a national survey deployed electronically to over 19,000 EMS professionals in April of 2021, we examined perspectives about acceptance of and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. Survey comments revealed differences in perspectives between vaccinated and unvaccinated EMS professionals regarding their personal role in improving public health through COVID-19 vaccination as well as vaccine benefits and the protection conferred by vaccination. Unvaccinated individuals also expressed concerns over the research and development of the COVID-19 vaccines that led to their decision not to get vaccinated. Individuals who were vaccinated suggested ways to increase uptake of the vaccine including having healthcare professionals serve as leaders for vaccination and educating individuals about COVID-19 vaccination through credible resources. Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge to achieving herd immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, even among healthcare professionals. Understanding the perspectives of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated can help direct strategies to reduce confusion and concerns. The perspectives of vaccinated individuals may also be valuable in identifying opportunities to promote vaccination in the professional setting.

5.
Telemed J E Health ; 28(9): 1261-1269, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1632904

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth as an alternative to in-person hospital visits. To understand the factors impacting the quality of telehealth services, there is a need for validated survey instruments and conceptual frameworks. The objective of this study is to validate a telehealth patient satisfaction survey by structural equation modeling (SEM) and determine the relationship between the factors in the proposed telehealth patient satisfaction model (TPSM). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pediatric patients and families receiving care from a comprehensive pediatric hospital in the Midwest between September 2020 and January 2021. In total, 2,039 usable responses were collected. We used an SEM approach by performing confirmatory factor analysis with Diagonally Weighted Least Squares modeling and Partial Least Squares-Path Modeling to establish the structural validity and examined the relationships among the constructs of "Admission Process" (AP), "Perceived Quality of Service" (PQS), and "Telehealth Satisfaction" (TS). Results: Participants were predominantly White (75%) and English-speaking (95%) parents (85%) of patients (mean age of patients was 10.2 years old). The survey responses were collected from patients visiting 43 department specialties, whereas 50% were behavioral and occupational therapy patients. The structural model showed that the admission process (AP) had a strong positive impact on perceived quality of service (PQS) (p = 0.67, t = 36.1, p < 0.001). The PQS had a strong positive impact on telehealth satisfaction (TS) (p = 0.66, t = 31.8, p < 0.001). The AP had a low positive direct impact on TS (p = 0.16, t = 7.46, p < 0.05). Overall, AP and PQS explained 61% variances (R2) of TS. Conclusions: We validated a newly proposed TS assessment model by using SEM. The TPSM will inform researchers to better understand the influencing factors in TS and help health care systems to improve telehealth patient satisfaction through a validated model.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Latent Class Analysis , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(2)2022 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613783

ABSTRACT

Although COVID-19 vaccines are widely available in the U.S. and much of the world, many have chosen to forgo this vaccination. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals, despite their role on the frontlines and interactions with COVID-positive patients, are not immune to vaccine hesitancy. Via a survey conducted in April 2021, we investigated the extent to which first responders in the U.S. trusted various information sources to provide reliable information about COVID-19 vaccines. Those vaccinated generally trusted healthcare providers as a source of information, but unvaccinated first responders had fairly low trust in this information source-a group to which they, themselves, belong. Additionally, regardless of vaccination status, trust in all levels of government, employers, and their community as sources of information was low. Free-response explanations provided some context to these findings, such as preference for other COVID-19 management options, including drugs proven ineffective. A trusted source of COVID-19 vaccination information is not readily apparent. Individuals expressed a strong desire for the autonomy to make vaccination decisions for themselves, as opposed to mandates. Potential reasons for low trust, possible solutions to address them, generalizability to the broader public, and implications of low trust in official institutions are discussed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Responders , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Trust , Vaccination , Vaccination Hesitancy
7.
Med Care ; 59(12): 1067-1074, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517939

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The increase in telehealth in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlights the need to understand patients' capacity to utilize this care modality. Patient portals are a tool whose use requires similar resources and skills as those required for telehealth. Patients' capacity to use patient portals may therefore provide insight regarding patients' readiness and capacity to use telehealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine factors related to patients' capacity to use a patient portal and test the impact of these factors on patients' portal use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Using data from a large-scale pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient portal use, 1081 hospitalized patients responded to survey items that were then mapped onto the 4 dimensions of the Engagement Capacity Framework: self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities. MEASURES: The outcome variable was frequency of outpatient portal use. We evaluated associations between Engagement Capacity Framework dimensions and patient portal use, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients with fewer resources, fewer capabilities, lower willingness, and lower overall capacity to use patient portals used the portal less; in contrast, those with lower perceived self-efficacy used the portal more. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight differences in patients' capacity to use patient portals, which provide an initial understanding of factors that may influence the use of telehealth and offer important guidance in efforts to support patients' telehealth use. Offering patients training tailored to the use of telehealth tools may be particularly beneficial.


Subject(s)
Patient Participation/psychology , Patient Portals , Telemedicine , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Psychological , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Self Efficacy , Self-Assessment , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
8.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; 26(5): 632-640, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467242

ABSTRACT

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Prevalence , Trust
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL