Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
JMIR Form Res ; 7: e41799, 2023 03 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2263541

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hesitancy to get vaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease vaccination coverage and facilitate the occurrence of local or global outbreaks. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Catalonia on 3 aspects: the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19, changes in opinion about vaccination in general, and the decision to get vaccinated against other diseases. METHODS: We performed an observational study with the population of Catalonia aged 18 years or over, obtaining information through a self-completed questionnaire in electronic format. Differences between groups were determined using the chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, or the Student t test. RESULTS: We analyzed the answers from 1188 respondents, of which 870 were women, 47.0% (558/1187) had sons or daughters under the age of 14 years, and 71.7% (852/1188) had studied at university. Regarding vaccination, 16.3% (193/1187) stated that they had refused a vaccine on some occasion, 76.3% (907/1188) totally agreed with vaccines, 1.9% (23/1188) were indifferent, and 3.5% (41/1188) and 1.2% (14/1188) slightly or totally disagreed with vaccination, respectively. As a result of the pandemic, 90.8% (1069/1177) stated that they would get vaccinated against COVID-19 when they are asked, while 9.2% (108/1177) stated the opposite. A greater intention to get vaccinated was observed among women; people older than 50 years; people without children under 15 years of age; people with beliefs, culture, or family in favor of vaccination; respondents who had not previously rejected other vaccines, were totally in favor of vaccines, or had not increased their doubts about vaccination; and respondents who had not changed their decision about vaccines as a result of the pandemic. Finally, 30.3% (359/1183) reported an increase in their doubts regarding vaccination, and 13.0% (154/1182) stated that they had changed their decision about routinely recommended vaccines as a result of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The population studied was predominantly in favor of vaccination; however, the percentage of people specifically rejecting vaccination against COVID-19 was high. As a result of the pandemic, we detected an increase in doubts about vaccines. Although the final decision about vaccination did not primarily change, some of the respondents did change their opinion about routine vaccinations. This seed of doubt about vaccines may be worrisome as we aim to maintain high vaccination coverage.

2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(7)2021 03 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly strained healthcare systems worldwide. The reference standard for diagnosis is a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, but results are not immediate and sensibility is variable. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound compared to chest X-ray for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis of symptomatic patients admitted into one primary care centre in Spain between March and September 2020. METHOD: Patients' chest X-rays and lung ultrasounds were categorized as normal or pathologic. RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection. Pathologic lung ultrasound images were further categorized as showing either local or diffuse interstitial disease. McNemar and Fisher tests were used to compare diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Most of the 212 patients presented fever at admission, either as a standalone symptom (37.74% of patients) or together with others (72.17% of patients). The positive predictive value of the lung ultrasound was 90% for the diffuse interstitial pattern and 46.92% for local pattern. The lung ultrasound had a significantly higher sensitivity (82.75%) (p < 0.001), but lower specificity (71%) than the chest X-ray (54.02% and 86%, respectively) (p = 0.008) for identifying interstitial lung disease. Moreover, sensitivity of the lung ultrasound for severe interstitial disease was 100%, and was significantly higher than the chest X-ray (58.33%) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The lung ultrasound is more accurate than the chest X-ray for identifying patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and it is especially useful for those presenting diffuse interstitial disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spain , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , X-Rays
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL