Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 10: 1023914, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2142356

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Since becoming available, vaccines against COVID-19 have been a focus of public debate. This is particularly relevant among healthcare and social workers, who interact with vulnerable patients and clients on a daily basis. With employers implementing educational programs and offering incentives to raise vaccine willingness among their staff, it is crucial to understand drivers of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy as well as the impact employers can play on vaccine decision-making. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study via computer-assisted telephone and web interviews. We recruited from a pool of employees from nursing and social care institutions in Vienna and Lower Austria operated by one healthcare NGO. Variables included in the analysis were socio-demographic attributes, reasons for or against the vaccine, sources of information, opinions of mandatory vaccination, and whether respondents had previously been infected with COVID-19 or knew someone who had. Results: 86.2% of respondents had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. 13.8% were unvaccinated. Vaccinated respondents' main reason for getting the vaccine was to protect themselves (79.6%) as well as others (74.1%), while non-vaccinated respondents cited a fear of short or long-term side effects (58.8 and 42.4%, respectively) as their primary reason for not getting vaccinated. 72.8% of the unvaccinated said no incentive would make them change their mind, while 17.4% specified abstract concepts or systemic change as effective incentives. Monetary incentives were not seen as a motivator. Unvaccinated respondents were significantly more worried about the future than vaccinated respondents (78.8 vs. 26.3%, p < 0.001). They were also significantly more likely to view their employers' vaccine recommendations as "manipulative" (50.6 vs. 12.4%, p < 0.001), while vaccinated respondents were significantly more likely to view them as "supportive" (68.0 vs. 25.9%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: While employers have the means to mediate public health decision-making by providing information, deciding to become vaccinated is a more complex process including public debate, world views, political influences, and the uptake of information. Employers can act as mediators for public health decision-making, moving policy measures beyond an individualized view of health choices and health literacy toward more structural, systemic, and community-based efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Austria , Social Support
2.
J R Soc Interface ; 18(185): 20210608, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1865053

ABSTRACT

Due to its high lethality among older people, the safety of nursing homes has been of central importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. With test procedures and vaccines becoming available at scale, nursing homes might relax prohibitory measures while controlling the spread of infections. By control we mean that each index case infects less than one other person on average. Here, we develop an agent-based epidemiological model for the spread of SARS-CoV-2 calibrated to Austrian nursing homes to identify optimal prevention strategies. We find that the effectiveness of mitigation testing depends critically on test turnover time (time until test result), the detection threshold of tests and mitigation testing frequencies. Under realistic conditions and in absence of vaccinations, we find that mitigation testing of employees only might be sufficient to control outbreaks if tests have low turnover times and detection thresholds. If vaccines that are 60% effective against high viral load and transmission are available, control is achieved if 80% or more of the residents are vaccinated, even without mitigation testing and if residents are allowed to have visitors. Since these results strongly depend on vaccine efficacy against infection, retention of testing infrastructures, regular testing and sequencing of virus genomes is advised to enable early identification of new variants of concern.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Aged , Humans , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
3.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 8(3): e34003, 2022 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742128

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Online information on COVID-19 vaccination may influence people's perception and willingness to be vaccinated. Official websites of vaccination programs have not been systematically assessed before. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess and compare the readability and content quality of web-based information on COVID-19 vaccination posted on official/governmental websites. Furthermore, the relationship between evaluated website parameters and country vaccination rates were calculated. METHODS: By referring to an open data set hosted at Our World in Data, the 58 countries/regions with the highest total vaccination count as of July 8, 2021, were identified. Together with the websites from the World Health Organization and European Union, a total of 60 vaccination campaign websites were targeted. The "frequently asked questions" or "questions and answers" section of the websites were evaluated in terms of readability (Flesch Reading Ease score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), quality (Health On the Net Foundation code [HONcode] certification and Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool), and content stating vaccination duration of protection and potential side effects. RESULTS: In terms of readability, the Flesch Reading Ease score of the vaccination frequently asked questions websites ranged between 11.2 and 69.5, with a mean of 40.9 (SD 13.2). Meanwhile, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ranged between 6.5 and 17.6, with a mean of 12.1 (SD 2.8). In terms of quality, only 2 websites were HONcode certified, and the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool score of the websites ranged between 7 and 20, with a mean of 15.3 (SD 3.1). Half of the websites (25/50) did not present a publication date or date of the last update. Regarding the duration of protection offered by the vaccines, 46% (23/50) of the websites stated that they do not know, and another 40% (20/50) did not address it. Five side effects of the vaccinations were most frequently mentioned, namely, fever/chill (41/50, 82%), various injection site discomfort events (eg, swelling, redness, or pain; 39/50, 78%), headache (36/50, 72%), fatigue (33/50, 66%), and muscle/joint pain (31/50, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the content quality of most of the evaluated websites was good, but HONcode certification should be considered, content should be written in a more readable manner, and a publication date or date of the last update should be presented.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Comprehension , Humans , Reading , Vaccination
4.
Nurs Open ; 9(2): 1155-1163, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1588991

ABSTRACT

AIM: Centring on nursing homes, we analysed the implementation process of a tablet- and videoconferencing-based telemedicine application from the perspectives of management, nursing staff and physicians. DESIGN: We used a qualitative design based on interviews to explore diverse perspectives on the implementation of telemedicine. METHODS: We conducted fourteen face-to-face or online interviews with a purposeful sample of five managers, six nurses and three general practitioners treating residents in Austrian nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We condensed data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nursing home management implemented telemedicine rapidly, using a top-down approach met with ambivalence by staff. On the part of nurses, their professional understanding of person-centred care was challenged. Telemedicine also impacted cooperation between nurses and physicians, influencing their respective understanding of their roles. Working experience with digital nursing documentation had a positive effect on users' acceptance of the telemedicine solution.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , Nursing Homes , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Aging Dis ; 12(3): 710-717, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315005

ABSTRACT

In December 2019, the People's Republic of China and the World Health Organization first reported on a cluster of pneumonia with an unknown cause. Nine months later more than 1.4 million people have died from COVID 19. In this work, the effects of the COVID 19 pandemic on five nursing homes in Austria, which cared for 889 residents in the first half of 2020, were examined. The research question was whether the measures taken were appropriate to prevent an outbreak within the individual facilities. To detect previously unrecognized infections, the present study evaluated the prevalence of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in residents and employees of the nursing homes. Following the analysis of blood samples, the prospectively collected data was connected to data from screening examinations and data from contact tracing. The present study demonstrated an overall prevalence of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in nursing homes of 3.7%. Whereas the prevalence in those facilities that have never been hit by an outbreak is 0%, the prevalence in those facilities with an outbreak is up to 4.9%. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 35 persons. A retrospective analysis of all 5 included nursing homes demonstrated that upon regular clinical screening in combination with PCRs an infection with SARS-COV-2 was detected in 66 residents and 24 employees from different professional groups. In only 25 of the 35 persons with neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 an infection was proven in advance. This study suggests that specific measures can prevent transmission within a health care facility. Nevertheless, the results also show that a risk reduction to 0% cannot be achieved. In preparation for further pandemic waves there is still the need to reduce the probability of a transmission in nursing homes with specific test strategies.

6.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 9(3)2021 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1129690

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: With the spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the world has been experiencing an extraordinary state of emergency. As patients entering a doctor's practice can potentially infect medical staff and other patients, using digital alternatives wherever possible is a potential solution to avoiding face-to-face encounters. In these conditions, telemedicine is becoming increasingly relevant. Hence, the aim of this study was to examine telemedicine use and gathered experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In June 2020, a representative group of Austrian respondents (n = 1000) was asked via online survey whether they had contacted a doctor during spring of 2020, and, if so, whether they had used a telemedical method to do so. The survey also reflected gathered experiences and degrees of satisfaction with the use of telemedicine. RESULTS: A third (33%) of those who contacted a doctor during the target period did so using telemedical tools. The majority of those with previous telehealth experience were satisfied with the help they received. Patients commonly used a telephone to contact their doctors. The overall assessment of telemedical aids tended to be positive, with more than half (53%) of those surveyed seeing significant advantages, and a 90% satisfaction rate among the respondents who used telehealth services. CONCLUSION: The outcomes from this work hint at fairly high acceptance of telemedical communication tools in the studied group of the Austrian population. Based on the high rate of satisfaction among patients who used telehealth, it is expected that the use of telehealth services will increase further in the near future.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL