Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open ; 3(4): e12808, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2013482

ABSTRACT

Objective: As the COVID-19 pandemic began, there were significant concerns for the strength and stability of the emergency medical services (EMS) workforce. These concerns were heightened with the closure of examination centers and the cessation of certification examinations. The impact of this interruption on the EMS workforce is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on initial EMS certification in the United States. In addition, we evaluated mitigation measures taken to address these interruptions. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of the National Certification Cognitive Examination administration and results for emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic candidates. We compared the number of examinations administered and first-attempt pass rates in 2020 (pandemic) to 2019 (control). Descriptive statistics and 2 one-sided tests of equivalence were used to assess if there was a relevant difference of ±5 percentage points. Results: Total number of examinations administered decreased by 15% (EMT, 14%; paramedic, 7%). Without the addition of EMT remote proctoring, the EMT reduction would have been 35%. First-time pass rates were similar in both EMT (-0.9%) and paramedic (-1.9%) candidates, which did not meet our threshold of a relevant difference. Conclusion: COVID-19 has had a measurable impact on examination administration for both levels of certification. First-time pass rates remained unaffected. EMT remote proctoring mitigated some of the impact of COVID-19 on examination administration, although a comparison with mitigation was not assessed. These reductions indicate a potential decrease in the newly certified workforce, but future evaluations will be necessary to assess the presence and magnitude of this impact.

2.
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
3.
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.

4.
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
5.
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