Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 49
Filter
1.
J Relig Health ; 62(3): 1473-1490, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2313020

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to explore Australian chaplains' views of spirituality. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with 16 participants. Participants relied heavily on metaphors and analogies to describe spirituality. Four inter-related themes were identified through reflexive thematic analysis: (1) The core of spirituality: spirituality as a source of meaning or belief which leads to connectedness with something greater than oneself; (2) A function of spirituality: spirituality empowers people to cope in a crisis, by providing motivation, hope and comfort; (3) The experience of spiritual crisis: admission to hospital or residential care can lead to existential struggle; and (4) The spiritual practice: of holding space between struggle and growth. Greater understanding of the theoretical basis of their work may allow chaplains to offer more in the therapeutic space.

3.
Leisure Sciences ; 43(1-2):287-294, 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-2282094

ABSTRACT

Staying healthy while following social distancing protocols is of great importance to older adults due to increased risk of serious complications from COVID-19. Mild to moderate physical activity improves immune system responses to viral respiratory infections. Additionally, social engagement has cumulative health protective benefits across the lifespan. At present, active and social recreation opportunities have been drastically reduced or disbanded due to group size limitations, stay-at-home orders, and reductions in services and facilities. As a result, community dwelling older adults are homebound and need alternative exercise and social opportunities to maintain their health during this time. Leisure professionals can promote physical activity and social well-being among older adults by increasing home-based opportunities, including offering additional online leisure services, opportunities for volunteerism, and social interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

4.
Vaccine ; 41(16): 2650-2655, 2023 04 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2260608

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends shared clinical decision-making (SCDM) regarding HPV vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The objective of this survey was to understand physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding HPV vaccination in this age group. METHODS: An online survey was administered in June 2021 to physicians who reported practicing internal medicine, family medicine, or obstetrics and gynecology (targeted N = 250 in each practice specialty), selected randomly from potentially eligible physicians from a panel of 2 million U.S. health care providers. RESULTS: In total, 753 physicians participated in the survey: 33.3% practiced internal medicine, 33.1% practiced family medicine, and 33.6% practiced obstetrics/gynecology; 62.5% were male and mean physician age was 52.7 years. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, at least a third of participating physicians in each practice specialty reported having more HPV vaccine SCDM discussions with patients aged 27-45 years in the past 12 months. While a majority of physicians (79.7%) reported being aware of the SCDM recommendation for adults in this age group, only half of physicians answered an objective knowledge question about SCDM recommendations correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that there are physician knowledge gaps related to SCDM for HPV vaccination. To improve access to HPV vaccination for people most likely to benefit, increasing availability and use of decision aids to support SCDM discussions might help healthcare providers and patients jointly make the most informed decisions about HPV vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Adult , Male , United States , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics , Vaccination , Health Personnel , Papillomavirus Vaccines/therapeutic use , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
5.
J Adolesc Health ; 72(5): 667-673, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2240984

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Vaccinating adolescents against COVID-19 while avoiding delays in other routine vaccination is paramount to protecting their health. Our objective was to assess parental preferences to have their adolescents aged 12-17 years receive COVID-19 and other routine vaccines at the same time. METHODS: An online survey with a national, quota-based cross-sectional sample of United States parents of youth aged 12-17 years was fielded in April 2021 ahead of FDA's Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccine for age 12-15 years. Parents were asked about their willingness to have their adolescents aged 12-17 years receive both COVID-19 and routine vaccines at the same visit and/or to follow their provider's recommendation. Predictors included demographic characteristics, being behind on routine vaccines, and perceived risks and benefits. RESULTS: Few parents were willing to have their adolescent receive COVID-19 and routine vaccines at the same visit (10.6%) or follow the healthcare provider's recommendation (18.5%). In multivariate analyses, demographic characteristics had no effect on willingness, reporting that the adolescent was behind on routine vaccines correlated with decreased willingness (p = .004). Greater concern about the adolescent getting COVID-19 (p = .001), lower concern about the adolescent having side effects from the COVID-19 vaccine (p = .013), and more positive feelings about vaccines in general (p = .002) were associated with higher willingness. DISCUSSION: Few parents would prefer to have their adolescents receive COVID-19 and routine vaccines at the same visit. Understanding what drives willingness to receive all recommended vaccines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic could inform policies to optimize adolescent vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Adolescent , United States , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Vaccination , Parents
6.
researchsquare; 2023.
Preprint in English | PREPRINT-RESEARCHSQUARE | ID: ppzbmed-10.21203.rs.3.rs-2622646.v1

ABSTRACT

Background: As COVID-19 spread across the globe, cancer services were required to rapidly pivot to minimise risks without compromising outcomes for patients or staff. The aim of this study was to document changes to Oncology services as a result of COVID-19 from the perspectives of both providers and receivers of care during the initial phase of the pandemic. Methods: Participants were recruited between June and December 2020 through an email invitation via professional or consumer organisations, two hospital-based oncology services and snowballing. Semi-structured interviews focused on health service changes and their impacts, which were then analysed by thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-two patients, 16 carers and 29 health professionals were recruited.  Fifteen patients (n=47%) had localised disease and 19 (n=59%) were currently receiving treatment. Oncology staff included oncologists, palliative care physicians, nurses, allied health and psychosocial practitioners. Four themes arose from the data: safety, increased stress and burnout, communication challenges, and quality of cancer care. Conclusions: There is an ongoing need for cancer-specific information from a single, trusted source to inform medical practitioners and patients/carers. More data are required to inform evidence-based guidelines for cancer care during future pandemics. All stakeholders require ongoing support to avoid stress and burnout.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms
7.
Prev Chronic Dis ; 20: E06, 2023 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2234410

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has caused more than 100.2 million infections and more than 1 million deaths in the US as of November 2022, yet information on the economic burden associated with post-COVID-19 conditions is lacking. We estimated the possible economic burden associated with post-COVID-19 conditions by comparing direct medical costs among patients younger than 65 years with and without COVID-19 in the postacute period. METHODS: Commercially insured children and adults with a COVID-19 diagnosis (cases) during April-August 2020 were matched to those without COVID-19 (controls) on a 1:4 ratio. Direct medical costs represented 1-, 3-, and 6-month total expenditures per person starting 31 days after the diagnosis date. We used a 2-part model to evaluate cost differences among individuals with and without COVID-19, adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Costs were higher among cases compared with controls. Direct medical costs among child cases were 1.82, 1.72, and 1.70 times higher than controls over 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Direct medical costs among adult cases were 1.69, 1.54, and 1.46 times higher than costs among controls over 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Relative differences in costs were highest among adults aged 50 to 64 years. In a subset of people with COVID-19, costs were higher among hospitalized cases compared with nonhospitalized cases. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a considerable economic burden of COVID-19 even after the resolution of acute illness, highlighting the importance of prevention and mitigation measures to reduce the economic impact of COVID-19 on the US health care system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Child , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Expenditures , Insurance, Health , Health Care Costs
8.
Workplace Health Saf ; 71(4): 162-171, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2224103

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early interventions are needed to support the behavioral health of healthcare staff in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stress First Aid (SFA) is a self-care and peer support model for reducing burnout and stress that is designed for use in high-stress occupations. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of an SFA program in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This brief, multi-session, didactic program was adapted for hospital workgroups. Program attendees completed a survey assessing implementation outcomes, burnout, stress, mood, and SFA skills at the beginning (N = 246) and end (n = 94) of the SFA program and a subgroup (n = 11) completed qualitative feedback interviews. FINDINGS: Program acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were rated highly. From pre- to post-SFA, the impact of the pandemic on stress and anxiety, as well as proficiency in supporting peers increased. Qualitative findings suggest the program provided a shared language to discuss stress, normalized stress reactions, met a need for stress management tools, and helped staff feel valued, empowered, connected with each other. Staff reported being more aware of their stress, but SFA was insufficient to address many of the systemic sources of burnout and stress. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: While the SFA program was well received, the impact of brief programs is likely to be modest when implemented in the middle of an ongoing pandemic and when burnout arises from chiefly from systemic sources. Lessons learned during the program implementation that may guide future efforts are discussed.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , First Aid , Veterans Health , Health Personnel , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control
9.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 117(10S), 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2111022
10.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1799, 2022 09 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038714

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Flavored tobacco products are highly appealing to youth. The Federal government lacks a comprehensive flavored tobacco products policy and states have adopted different approaches restricting these products. This study analyzes the impact of Massachusetts' comprehensive prohibition and New Jersey's partial restriction on the sale of flavored tobacco products. METHODS: NielsenIQ Retail Scanner data were used to construct four log per capita dependent variables: e-liquid milliliters, cigarette packs, cigars, and smokeless tobacco ounces for products flavored as fruit, menthol, mint, tobacco and other. All models used difference-in-differences regressions, with Virginia and Pennsylvania serving as controls. The models controlled for state level product prices, population percentages by race/ethnicity, proportion male, median household income, unemployment rate, minimum legal sales age, tobacco 21 policies, and cumulative cases and deaths of COVID-19; the models accounted for time-specific factors by using 4-week period fixed-effects. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in sales across all flavored tobacco products in Massachusetts, including fruit [-99.83%, p < 0.01], menthol [-98.33%, p < 0.01], and all other flavored [-99.28%, p < 0.01] e-cigarettes. The cigar group "all other-flavors" [-99.92%, p < 0.01] and menthol flavored cigarettes [-95.36%, p < 0.01] also significantly decreased. In New Jersey, there was a significant decrease in per capita sales of menthol-flavored e-cigarettes [-83.80%, p < 0.05] and cigar group "all other-flavors" experienced a significant increase in per capita sales [380.66%, p < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the impact of sales prohibitions on reducing sales of flavored tobacco products. Statewide comprehensive approaches appear more effective than partial restrictions and should be prioritized. IMPLICATIONS: Results from this study support emerging research that demonstrates the promising effects of comprehensive flavoring sales prohibitions. This study can be used to inform future flavored tobacco product policy solutions developed by advocates and policy makers to curb overall tobacco initiation and use by youth and adults.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems , Tobacco Products , Adolescent , Adult , Flavoring Agents , Humans , Male , Menthol
11.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(8): e2227437, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1971189

ABSTRACT

Importance: Children aged 6 months through 4 years have become eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, but little is known about parental intentions regarding, concerns about, or facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination for this age group. Objectives: To evaluate parental intentions, concerns, and facilitators for COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 6 months through 4 years and to help inform the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' deliberations and recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 6 months through 4 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study fielded an online survey from February 2 to 10, 2022, among a nonprobability sample of US parents of children aged 6 months through 4 years who were recruited through Qualtrics using quota-based sampling for respondent gender, race and ethnicity, and child age group. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 vaccination intentions, time to COVID-19 vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination concerns and facilitators, and trusted COVID-19 vaccination locations for children aged 6 months through 4 years. Results: The final weighted sample of 2031 participants (73.5% participation rate) had more respondents who identified as male (985; weighted percentage, 54.8%) or White (696; weighted percentage, 66.2%), were aged 25 to 49 years (1628; weighted percentage, 85.6%), had at least a bachelor's degree (711; weighted percentage, 40.0%), lived in a metropolitan area (1743; weighted percentage, 82.9%) or the South (961; weighted percentage, 43.4%), or received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (1205; weighted percentage, 59.8%). Half of respondents (645; weighted percentage, 45.6%) indicated that they "definitely" or "probably" will vaccinate their child aged 6 months through 4 years once they became eligible. However, only one-fifth (396; weighted percentage, 19.0%) indicated they would get a COVID-19 vaccine for their child in this age group within 3 months of them becoming eligible for vaccination. Vaccine safety and efficacy were parents' top concerns, and receiving more information about safety and efficacy were the top facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination for this age group. A doctor's office or clinic and local pharmacy were the most trusted COVID-19 vaccination locations for this age group. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that only a minority of parents of children in this age group are eager to vaccinate their children within the first few months of eligibility, with widespread concerns about COVID-19 vaccination for this age group. Thus, considerable efforts to increase parental COVID-19 vaccine confidence for children aged 6 months through 4 years may be needed to maximize COVID-19 vaccination for this age group in the United States.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Intention , Male , Parents , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , Young Adult
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(23): 757-763, 2022 Jun 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1955140

ABSTRACT

Some racial and ethnic minority groups have experienced disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19-related illness and mortality (1,2). Vaccination is highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and death (3), and equitable vaccination can reduce COVID-19-related disparities. CDC analyzed data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM), a random-digit-dialed cellular telephone survey of adults aged ≥18 years, to assess disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity among U.S. adults during December 2020-November 2021. Asian and non-Hispanic White (White) adults had the highest ≥1-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage by the end of April 2021 (69.6% and 59.0%, respectively); ≥1-dose coverage was lower among Hispanic (47.3%), non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (46.3%), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI) (45.9%), multiple or other race (42.6%), and American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (38.7%) adults. By the end of November 2021, national ≥1-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage was similar for Black (78.2%), Hispanic (81.3%), NH/OPI (75.7%), and White adults (78.7%); however, coverage remained lower for AI/AN (61.8%) and multiple or other race (68.0%) adults. Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine are now recommended for all adults (4), but disparities in booster dose coverage among the fully vaccinated have become apparent (5). Tailored efforts including community partnerships and trusted sources of information could be used to increase vaccination coverage among the groups with identified persistent disparities and can help achieve vaccination equity and prevent new disparities by race and ethnicity in booster dose coverage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ethnicity , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Minority Groups , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , Vaccination Coverage
15.
Curr Opin Pediatr ; 34(2): 156-162, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1722709

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To offer: (1) Insight into the antivaccine movement's use of social media negatively impacting vaccine hesitancy and disease outbreaks, (2) Examples via case observations, and (3) Selected resources to combat vaccine hesitancy. RECENT FINDINGS: For the past 25 years, daily social media usage has risen continually, allowing information to spread widely to a reading/listening/viewing audience via mostly unvetted social media sites. During a pandemic/epidemic (e.g., coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic), an overabundance of information from many sources, including social media, has led to what is now termed as an 'infodemic'. Infodemics arise from overwhelming amounts of both correct and incorrect information from experts and nonexperts alike. Differentiating correct from incorrect information is difficult for social media users who can be swayed by nonscientific 'influencers' or fear-mongering more than by vetted expert scientific information. Consequently, vaccine misinformation is steadily increasing via social media, the use of which is often believed to be associated with vaccine hesitancy. Stopping the spread of misinformation has been a difficult task. SUMMARY: Vaccine misinformation on social media has been detrimental to public health. Vaccine advocates must increase the use of social media to the advantage of public health in the persistent struggle against vaccine hesitancy/refusal.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communication , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination Hesitancy
16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(2): e2147813, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1680206

ABSTRACT

Importance: e-Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among US youths. Flavors are among the most cited reasons for use of e-cigarettes among youths, and therefore, some states have imposed restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales. To our knowledge, no study has compared e-cigarette sales between states with statewide flavored e-cigarette restrictions and states without such restrictions while controlling for co-occurring events. Objective: To assess whether implementation of statewide restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington was associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette unit sales from 2014 to 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study with difference-in-differences analysis used e-cigarette retail sales data from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, which implemented restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in October 2019; New York, which implemented these restrictions in May 2020; and 35 states without these restrictions (control states). Sales were summed into 4-week periods from August 24, 2014, to December 27, 2020, for a total of 2988 state-period observations. Main Outcomes and Measures: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare e-cigarette unit sales in the 4 states with flavor restrictions (before and after implementation) with those in the 35 control states. The model controlled for other population-based policies and emergent events (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic). Data on 4-week e-cigarette unit sales were sorted into 4 flavor categories (tobacco, menthol, mint, and other). Unit sales were standardized to reflect the most common package sizes for each product type. Results: Statewide restrictions on non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales were associated with the following reductions in mean 4-week total e-cigarette sales in intervention states compared with control states from October 2019 to December 2020: 30.65% (95% CI, 24.08%-36.66%) in New York, 31.26% (95% CI, 11.94%-46.34%) in Rhode Island, and 25.01% (95% CI, 18.43%-31.05%) in Washington. In Massachusetts, the comprehensive sales prohibition of all e-cigarette products was associated with a 94.38% (95% CI, 93.37%-95.23%) reduction in 4-week sales compared with control states. Except in Massachusetts, where all sales of flavored e-cigarettes decreased, reductions were found only for non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales in the other states with restrictions. Among control states, mean sales decreased by 28.4% from August 2019 to February 2020 but then increased by 49.9% from February through December 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, statewide restrictions on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington were associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette sales. These findings suggest that not all e-cigarette users who purchased non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes switched to purchasing tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes after policy implementation.


Subject(s)
Commerce/statistics & numerical data , Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems/statistics & numerical data , Flavoring Agents , Vaping/legislation & jurisprudence , Commerce/legislation & jurisprudence , Consumer Behavior/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Vaping/epidemiology
17.
Public Health Rep ; 137(2): 239-243, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673687

ABSTRACT

Monitoring COVID-19 vaccination coverage among nursing home residents and staff is important to ensure high coverage rates and guide patient-safety policies. With the termination of the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, another source of facility-based vaccination data is needed. We compared numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations administered to nursing home residents and staff reported by pharmacies participating in the temporary federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program with the numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations reported by nursing homes participating in new COVID-19 vaccination modules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Pearson correlation coefficients comparing the number vaccinated between the 2 approaches were 0.89, 0.96, and 0.97 for residents and 0.74, 0.90, and 0.90 for staff, in the weeks ending January 3, 10, and 17, 2021, respectively. Based on subsequent NHSN reporting, vaccination coverage with ≥1 vaccine dose reached 73.7% for residents and 47.6% for staff the week ending January 31 and increased incrementally through July 2021. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important as new nursing home residents are admitted, new staff are hired, and additional doses of vaccine are recommended.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Long-Term Care , Nursing Homes , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Humans , Mandatory Reporting , Public Health Surveillance/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
18.
Acad Pediatr ; 22(4): 559-563, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1651025

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe, among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs), 1) changes made to routine childhood vaccination delivery as a result of the pandemic, and 2) perceived barriers to delivering vaccinations from March 2020 through the time of the survey. METHODS: A nationally representative survey among Peds and FPs was administered by mail or Internet in October-December 2020. RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (579/909). For children aged 0 to 2 years, among those who vaccinated that age group prepandemic (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 222), 5% of Peds and 15% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating these children at any time. For children aged 4 to 6 years (Peds n=264, FPs n = 229), 19% of Peds and 17% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. For children aged 11-18 years (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 251), 24% of Peds and 19% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. Nearly all reported returning to prepandemic vaccination services at the time of the survey. Factors most frequently reported as major/moderate barriers to providing vaccinations included fewer in-person visits because patients/parents were concerned about risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Peds, 52%; FPs, 54%), fewer in-person visits for sports clearance (Peds, 39%; FPs, 44%), and fewer back-to-school in-person visits because some children were in virtual learning (Peds, 25%; FPs, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: Although some physicians reported interrupting vaccination services at some point during the pandemic, the majority reported continuing to provide vaccinations throughout, with essentially all returning to prepandemic vaccination services by end of 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Physicians, Family , Primary Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
19.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 43(1): 37-39, 2022 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604942

ABSTRACT

Background: After Emergency Use Authorization of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, guidance was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that persons with an immediate allergic reaction to a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine should be evaluated by an allergist/immunologist before receipt of the second dose. Methods: In vaccinating health-care personnel, we referred those with significant reactions to allergy/immunology specialists so that they could safely receive the second dose. Results: We found that many reactions after the first dose were nonallergic but could be debilitating and a barrier to the second dose. We created a protocol of premedications to allow health-care personnel to safely receive their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose. Conclusion: This protocol is adaptable and can be used in settings where allergy/immunology referral is not immediately available.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , mRNA Vaccines/adverse effects , Anaphylaxis/chemically induced , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , RNA, Messenger
20.
J Pastoral Care Counsel ; 76(1): 56-65, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582577

ABSTRACT

Chaplain leadership may have played a pivotal role in shaping chaplains' roles in health care amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. We convened an international expert panel to identify expert perception on key chaplain leadership factors. Six leadership themes of professional confidence, engaging and trust-building with executives, decision-making, innovation and creativity, building integrative and trusting connections with colleagues, and promoting cultural competencies emerged as central to determining chaplains' integration, perceived value, and contributions during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chaplaincy Service, Hospital , Pastoral Care , Clergy , Humans , Leadership , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL