Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 10: 914691, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911122

ABSTRACT

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.842862.].

3.
Front Public Health ; 10: 842862, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792875

ABSTRACT

Data exploring parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children against COVID-19, and associated factors, is limited. This study aims to investigate parents' beliefs and intentions to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children using the Health Belief Model in Saudi Arabia. A national, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in November, 2021. The self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of parents. Adult parents with at least one 5-11-year-old child were included. The main outcome was parents' intention to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Variability in parents' intention was assessed by demographics, COVID-19-related factors, children's health status, and constructs from the Health Belief Model. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to investigate each factor and adjust for the intervariable effect on parental intention to vaccinate their children. Of the 4,135 participants, 61.9% were hesitant to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Parents aged 31 to 40 years (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49) and females (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84) had higher odds of being hesitant to vaccinate their children than parents from other groups. Parents who perceived low benefit from the vaccine (OR = 16.3; 95% CI, 12.1-21.9) or who had safety or efficacy concerns (OR = 3.76; 95% CI, 3.10-4.58) were among the most hesitant to vaccinate their children. In conclusion, vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among parents of 5-11-year-old children in Saudi Arabia and those who had beliefs of minimal benefits or lack of safety from the COVID-19 vaccine were more hesitant. Government efforts must be directed toward increasing parents' vaccine awareness and tackling the constructs of the Health Belief Model through a well-designed vaccination campaign.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Belief Model , Humans , Male , Parents , Saudi Arabia , Vaccination
4.
Frontiers in public health ; 10, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1787016

ABSTRACT

Data exploring parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their 5–11-year-old children against COVID-19, and associated factors, is limited. This study aims to investigate parents' beliefs and intentions to vaccinate their 5–11-year-old children using the Health Belief Model in Saudi Arabia. A national, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in November, 2021. The self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of parents. Adult parents with at least one 5–11-year-old child were included. The main outcome was parents' intention to vaccinate their 5–11-year-old children. Variability in parents' intention was assessed by demographics, COVID-19-related factors, children's health status, and constructs from the Health Belief Model. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to investigate each factor and adjust for the intervariable effect on parental intention to vaccinate their children. Of the 4,135 participants, 61.9% were hesitant to vaccinate their 5–11-year-old children. Parents aged 31 to 40 years (OR = 1.23;95% CI, 1.02–1.49) and females (OR = 1.52;95% CI, 1.25–1.84) had higher odds of being hesitant to vaccinate their children than parents from other groups. Parents who perceived low benefit from the vaccine (OR = 16.3;95% CI, 12.1–21.9) or who had safety or efficacy concerns (OR = 3.76;95% CI, 3.10–4.58) were among the most hesitant to vaccinate their children. In conclusion, vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among parents of 5–11-year-old children in Saudi Arabia and those who had beliefs of minimal benefits or lack of safety from the COVID-19 vaccine were more hesitant. Government efforts must be directed toward increasing parents' vaccine awareness and tackling the constructs of the Health Belief Model through a well-designed vaccination campaign.

5.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(2)2022 Feb 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709345

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. RESULTS: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907-1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs.

6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(22)2021 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1534044

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is essential for optimal treatment outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. Medication nonadherence compromises patient clinical outcomes and patient safety as well as leading to an increase in unnecessary direct and indirect medical costs. Therefore, early identification of non-adherence by healthcare professionals using medication adherence scales should help in preventing poor clinical outcomes among patients with chronic health conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension. Unfortunately, there are very few validated medication adherence assessment scales in Arabic. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate a newly translated Arabic version of the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) among patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: In this single-center cross-sectional study that was conducted between March 2019 and March 2021 at the primary care clinics of King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the English version of SEAMS was translated to Arabic using the forward-backward method and piloted among 22 adults (≥18 yrs.) with chronic diseases. The reliability of the newly translated scale was examined using the test-retest and Cronbach's alpha methods. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the construct validity of the Arabic version of SEAMS. RESULTS: The number of patients who consented to participate and filled out the questionnaire was 202. Most of the participants were males (69.9%), aged ≥50 years (65.2%), and had diabetes (96.53%). The 13-item Arabic-translated SEAMS mean score was 32.37 ± 5.31, and the scale showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.886) and reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98). Total variance of the 13-item Arabic-SEAMS could be explained by two factors as confirmed by the factor analysis. CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of SEAMS should help in detecting poor self-efficacy for medication adherence among Arabic-speaking patient populations with chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension. Future studies should examine its validity among more diverse patient populations in different Arabic-speaking countries.


Subject(s)
Self Efficacy , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Factor Analysis, Statistical , Humans , Male , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(16)2021 Aug 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1341686

ABSTRACT

Stigma is a negative feeling affecting many patients with various health conditions, especially the contagious ones such as COVID-19. The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) is one of the valid and reliable stigma-measuring tools; however, it has not been translated and validated in Arabic. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and validate the EMIC in Arabic among a sample of Arabic-speaking adults who recently recovered from COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. The 12 items of the EMIC scale were forward- and backward-translated and reviewed by all authors to check the face and content validity prior to approving the final version of the Arabic 12-item EMIC. A total of 174 participants aged ≥18 years who contracted COVID-19 and recovered as of 29 July 2020 were interviewed. The Cronbach's alpha of the Arabic version of the 12-item EMIC was 0.79, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. Using principal component analysis with varimax rotation, two factors explained more than 60% of the variance of the translated EMIC scale. The mean EMIC score was 5.91, implying a low level of stigma among participants. Married participants (ß = 2.93; 95%CI 0.88 to 4.98, p = 0.005) and those with a family history of mental illness (ß = 2.38; 95%CI 0.29 to 4.46, p = 0.025) were more likely to have higher EMIC scores in comparison to their counterparts who were unmarried and had no family history of mental illness. On the contrary, older adults were less likely to have high EMIC scores (ß = -0.11; 95%CI -0.21 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Future studies with larger samples of patients with COVID-19 and various health conditions should be conducted to examine the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the EMIC among different patient populations and to unveil the factors that may play a role in patients' feelings of stigmatization in this part of the world.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Stigma , Adult , Culture , Humans , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Saudi Arabia , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL