ABSTRACT
Background. Although COVID-19 vaccination has shown to be clearly beneficial in children and adolescents to reduce hospitalization and potentially transmission, there is still a lot of hesitation among parents due to concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in children under 12 years of age. Methods. We conducted a comparative study in Peru to evaluate the trends in parents' intention to vaccinate their children under 12 years of age against COVID-19, for which an online survey was administered. The survey was distributed through social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), and was applied during two periods: 11/25/2021 to 12/06/2022 (Period 1) and 01/16/2022 to 01/24/2022 (Period 2). We also assessed the factors associated with the intention to vaccinate in each period through crude (cPR) and adjusted prevalence rates (aPR). Results. During period 1, there were 673 participants (69.7% women). In period 2, we had 1139 respondents (77.7% women). Regarding intention to vaccinate, 83.5% of parents intended to vaccinate their children under 12 years of age during period 1. This percentage was almost the same during period 2 (83.3%). During period 1, the factors associated with a decrease in this intention were to believe that the vaccine was not necessary (aPR 0.65;95% CI 0.44 - 0.94, p=0.022), that it would not protect (aPR: 0.14;95% CI 0.03 - 0.63, p=0.011), that it would not be safe (aPR: 0.80;95% CI 0.70 - 0.92, p=0.001), that it could cause long-termside effects (aPR: 0.92;95% CI 0.85 - 1.00, p=0.037), and to think it should not be mandatory (aPR: 0.89;95% CI 0.80-0.99, p=0.038). During period 2, besides the factors identified in period 1, not knowing about COVID-19 infection risk in children (aPR: 0.92;95% CI 0.85-1.00, p=0.042) was also associated with a decrease in the intention. Living on the highlands or jungle was associated with an increase in the intention in both periods. Conclusion. A high rate of intention to vaccinate children under 12 years of age was noted among parents in Peru, which was maintained until the end of January of 2022, right before COVID-19 vaccination started for this age group. There was a perception in some parents that the vaccine might not be necessary or safe, leading to a lower intention to vaccinate their children.
ABSTRACT
Rationale: The long-term consequences of COVID-19 infection on hospitalized patients remains unknown. We sought to conduct a systematic review to summarize what is known about long term sequelae among patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a search in MEDLINE and MedRxiv through December 15, 2020, using the search terms: “COVID-19”, “Constitutional symptoms”, “COVID- 19 Sequelae”, “Long-term COVID-19” and “Respiratory symptoms.” Articles were evaluated independently by two authors. We then extracted to perform a quantitative synthesis of available evidence and scored studies for quality using the NIH quality assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: We identified 12 studies: nine published articles and three preprints. We obtained data for 4693 patients: 11 studies included hospitalized patients, 8 included ICU patients and 5 included outpatients. Follow-up time ranged from 16 days to 122 days post-hospitalization. The pooled prevalence of persistent constitutional and respiratory symptoms was: (45.6%), dyspnea (35.5%), cough (26.4%), joint pain (26.8%), myalgia (23.3%), headache (22.2%), and chest pain (20.5%). Heterogeneity across studies was high (I2>90%). Chinese studies reported a lower frequency of persistent symptoms compared with studies carried out in Western countries (e.g., France, Italy, USA, UK). There were no significant differences in long-term sequelae between ICU and non-ICU patients. Conclusion: The prevalence of persistent constitutional and respiratory symptoms in patients infected with COVID-19 is high. Addressing the burden of symptoms that reduce the quality of life is critical in COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Objetive: To describe the prevention and control practices for the infection to SARS-COV2 in the Peruvian population. Material and Methods: Observational descriptive study. We evaluated a non-probabilistic sample of adult residents in some departments of Peru. Preventive practices were evaluated in people without a history of COVID-19 and control practices in people who had suffered it. Results: We evaluated 3630 Peruvians (mean age 25.4 +/- 9.5), of that 3231 don't have a history of COVID-19 and 399 who had suffered it. The prevention and control practices that were realized often or always, with more frequencies, was the use of a mask when they go out home (97.9% vs 87.7), cover their nose or mouth when they sneeze (95.4% vs 89.9%), save the distance to other people in the street (91.4% vs 74.7%), wash their hands when they came home (92.5% vs 88.7%), and disinfect the objects and personal places (82.6% vs 77.4%). The 22.1% and 83.7%, the 59.7% and 80.2, and the 8.0% and 16.8% consumed some type of medicine, medicinal plant, and chlorine dioxide to prevent and control the infection, respectively. Conclusion: In general, less than 50% of the participants performed prevention and control practices against COVID-19 often or always.
ABSTRACT
Objetive: To describe the prevention and control practices for the infection to SARS-COV2 in the Peruvian population. Material and Methods: Observational descriptive study. We evaluated a non-probabilistic sample of adult residents in some departments of Peru. Preventive practices were evaluated in people without a history of COVID-19 and control practices in people who had suffered it. Results: We evaluated 3630 Peruvians (mean age 25.4 ± 9.5), of that 3231 don't have a history of COVID-19 and 399 who had suffered it. The prevention and control practices that were realized often or always, with more frequencies, was the use of a mask when they go out home (97.9% vs 87.7), cover their nose or mouth when they sneeze (95.4% vs 89.9%), save the distance to other people in the street (91.4% vs 74.7%), wash their hands when they came home (92.5% vs 88.7%), and disinfect the objects and personal places (82.6% vs 77.4%). The 22.1% and 83.7%, the 59.7% and 80.2, and the 8.0% and 16.8% consumed some type of medicine, medicinal plant, and chlorine dioxide to prevent and control the infection, respectively. Conclusion: In general, less than 50% of the participants performed prevention and control practices against COVID-19 often or always. © 2021 Medical Body of the Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo National Hospital.