Concerns about and stimuli of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among diverse occupational groups in metropolitan areas of China: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to identify concerns and stimuli regarding COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and to compare the findings by occupation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 April and 30 June 2021 in four metropolitan areas of China. A total of 20 863 participants completed questionnaires, 20 767 of which were eligible for analysis. We used ordered logistic regression to assess the association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy according to occupation. RESULTS: Farmers were mainly concerned about the quality of vaccines (adjusted OR (aOR): 3.18, 95% CI (CI): 1.83 to 5.54). Among civil servants, media publicity reduced hesitancy (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.92). Among medical staff, concerns about a short duration of protective effects increased hesitancy (aOR: 8.31, 95% CI: 2.03 to 33.99). For most occupations, concerns about side effects, poor protective effects and health status increased hesitancy. In contrast, protecting oneself and protecting others acted as a stimulus to decrease hesitancy. Interestingly, 'people around me have been vaccinated' was associated with higher vaccination hesitancy among farmers (aOR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.20 to 4.00). CONCLUSION: The association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy varied by occupation. The characteristics and concerns of specific target audiences should be considered when designing informational campaigns to promote vaccination against COVID-19.

Impact of Contextual Factors on the Attendance and Role in the Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention Programs Among Primary Care Practitioners in Shanghai, China.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence-based approaches by general practitioners (GPs) is new in the primary care setting, and few quantitative studies have evaluated the impact of contextual factors on the attendance of these approaches. METHODS: In total, 892 GPs from 75 community healthcare centers (CHCs) in Shanghai completed our survey. We used logistic regression to analyze factors affecting the number of evidence-based chronic disease programs attended by GPs and whether they had held the lead position in such a program. RESULTS: A total of 346 (38.8%) of the practitioners had never participated in any evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) program. The EBCDP interventions in which the GPs had participated were predominantly related to hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. However, the proportion of GPs in the lead role was relatively low, between 0.8% (programs involving prevention and control of asthma) and 5.0% (diabetes). Organizational factors and areas were significantly associated with evidence-based practices (EBPs) of the GP, while monthly income and department were the most significantly related to GPs who have the lead role in a program. The results indicated that GPs who had taken the lead position had higher scores for policy and economic impeding factors. GPs who were men, had a higher income, and worked in prevention and healthcare departments and urban areas were more likely to take the lead position. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based programs for chronic diseases should be extended to different types of diseases. Personal, organizational, political, and economic factors and the factors of female sex, lower income, department type, and suburban area environment should be considered to facilitate the translation of evidence to practice.