Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 163
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 22(1): 33, 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622218

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are advised for pregnant women in the United Kingdom (UK) however COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women is inadequate. METHODS: An online survey and semi-structured interviews were used to investigate pregnant women's views on COVID-19 vaccine acceptability for themselves when pregnant, not pregnant and for their babies. One thousand one hundred eighty-one women, aged over 16 years, who had been pregnant since 23rd March 2020, were surveyed between 3rd August-11th October 2020. Ten women were interviewed. RESULTS: The majority of women surveyed (81.2%) reported that they would 'definitely' or were 'leaning towards' accepting a COVID-19 vaccine when not pregnant. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was significantly lower during pregnancy (62.1%, p < 0.005) and for their babies (69.9%, p < 0.005). Ethnic minority women were twice as likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves when not pregnant, pregnant and for their babies compared to women from White ethnic groups (p < 0.005). Women from lower-income households, aged under 25-years, and from some geographic regions were more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine when not pregnant, pregnant and for their babies. Multivariate analysis revealed that income and ethnicity were the main drivers of the observed age and regional differences. Women unvaccinated against pertussis in pregnancy were over four times more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccines when not pregnant, pregnant and for their babies. Thematic analysis of the survey freetext responses and interviews found safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines were common though wider mistrust in vaccines was also expressed. Trust in vaccines and the health system were also reasons women gave for accepting COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: Safety information on COVID-19 vaccines must be clearly communicated to pregnant women to provide reassurance and facilitate informed pregnancy vaccine decisions. Targeted interventions to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake among ethnic minority and lower-income women may be needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Vaccination/psychology , Adult , /statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Income , Mothers/psychology , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women/psychology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
2.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262347, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has substantially impacted healthcare utilization worldwide. The objective of this retrospective analysis of a large hospital discharge database was to compare all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations during the first six months of the pandemic in the United States with the same months in the previous four years. METHODS: Data were collected from all hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) and PHD Special Release reporting hospitalizations from January through July for each year from 2016 through 2020. Hospitalization trends were analyzed stratified by age group, major diagnostic categories (MDCs), and geographic region. RESULTS: The analysis included 286 hospitals from all 9 US Census divisions. The number of all-cause hospitalizations per month was relatively stable from 2016 through 2019 and then fell by 21% (57,281 fewer hospitalizations) between March and April 2020, particularly in hospitalizations for non-respiratory illnesses. From April onward there was a rise in the number of monthly hospitalizations per month. Hospitalizations per month, nationally and in each Census division, decreased for 20 of 25 MDCs between March and April 2020. There was also a decrease in hospitalizations per month for all age groups between March and April 2020 with the greatest decreases in hospitalizations observed for patients 50-64 and ≥65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of hospitalization declined substantially during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting delayed routine, elective, and emergency care in the United States. These lapses in care for illnesses not related to COVID-19 may lead to increases in morbidity and mortality for other conditions. Thus, in the current stage of the pandemic, clinicians and public-health officials should work, not only to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but also to ensure that care for non-COVID-19 conditions is not delayed.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization/trends , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , United States/epidemiology
3.
N Engl J Med ; 386(1): 7-9, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604986
4.
Front Immunol ; 12: 781161, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575929

ABSTRACT

Globally, vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health problem. It is detrimental to the consolidation of immunization program achievements and elimination of vaccine-targeted diseases. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in China and explore its contributing factors. A national cross-sectional online survey among Chinese adults (≥18 years old) was conducted between August 6, 2021 and August 9 via a market research company. We collected sociodemographic information; lifestyle behavior; quality of life; the knowledge, awareness, and behavior of COVID-19; the knowledge, awareness, and behavior of COVID-19 vaccine; willingness of COVID-19 vaccination; accessibility of COVID-19 vaccination services; skepticism about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine; doctor and vaccine developer scale; and so on. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate the associations by using logistic regression models. A total of 29,925 residents (48.64% men) were enrolled in our study with mean age of 30.99 years. We found an overall prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy at 8.40% (95% CI, 8.09-8.72) in primary vaccination and 8.39% (95% CI, 8.07-8.70) in booster vaccination. In addition, after adjusting for potential confounders, we found that women, higher educational level, married residents, higher score of health condition, never smoked, increased washing hands, increased wearing mask, increased social distance, lower level of vaccine conspiracy beliefs, disease risks outweigh vaccine risk, higher level of convenient vaccination, and higher level of trust in doctor and developer were more willing to vaccinate than all others (all p < 0.05). Age, sex, educational level, marital status, chronic disease condition, smoking, healthy behaviors, the curability of COVID-19, the channel of accessing information of COVID-19 vaccine, endorsement of vaccine conspiracy beliefs, weigh risks of vaccination against risks of the disease, making a positive influence on the health of others around you, and lower trust in healthcare system may affect the variation of willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine (all p < 0.05). The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was modest in China, even with the slight resulting cascade of changing vaccination rates between the primary and booster vaccination. Urgent action to address vaccine hesitancy is needed in building trust in medical personnel and vaccine producers, promoting the convenience of vaccination services, and spreading reliable information of COVID-19 vaccination via the Internet and other media.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , /statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , China/epidemiology , Factor Analysis, Statistical , Female , Humans , Immunization Programs , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Population Surveillance , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
6.
J Med Ethics ; 47(8): 547-548, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537986

ABSTRACT

Rapid, large-scale uptake of new vaccines against COVID-19 will be crucial to decrease infections and end the pandemic. In a recent article in this journal, Julian Savulescu argued in favour of monetary incentives to convince more people to be vaccinated once the vaccine becomes available. To evaluate the potential of his suggestion, we conducted an experiment investigating the impact of payments and the communication of individual and prosocial benefits of high vaccination rates on vaccination intentions. Our results revealed that none of these interventions or their combinations increased willingness to be vaccinated shortly after a vaccine becomes available. Consequently, decision makers should be cautious about introducing monetary incentives and instead focus on interventions that increase confidence in vaccine safety first, as this has shown to be an especially important factor regarding the demand for the new COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 , Motivation , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Health Education , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Clin Transl Sci ; 14(6): 2200-2207, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526354

ABSTRACT

Understanding and minimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is critical to population health and minimizing health inequities, which continue to be brought into stark relief by the pandemic. We investigate questions regarding vaccine hesitancy in a sample (n = 1205) of Arkansas adults surveyed online in July/August of 2020. We examine relationships among sociodemographics, COVID-19 health literacy, fear of COVID-19 infection, general trust in vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy using bivariate analysis and a full information maximum likelihood (FIML) logistic regression model. One in five people (21,21.86%) reported hesitancy to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black/African Americans (50.00%), respondents with household income less than $25K (30.68%), some college (32.17%), little to no fear of infection from COVID-19 (62.50%), and low trust in vaccines in general (55.84%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were 2.42 greater for Black/African American respondents compared to White respondents (p < 0.001), 1.67 greater for respondents with some college/technical degree compared to respondents with a 4-year degree (p < 0.05), 5.48 greater for respondents with no fear of COVID-19 infection compared to those who fear infection to a great extent (p < 0.001), and 11.32 greater for respondents with low trust in vaccines (p < 0.001). Sociodemographic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy raise concerns about the potential of vaccine implementation to widen existing health disparities in COVID-19 related infections, particularly among Black/African Americans. Fear of infection and general mistrust in vaccines are significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mass Vaccination/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , African Americans/psychology , African Americans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Fear , Female , /statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Trust , /statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
8.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e932788, 2021 Nov 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497920

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND The pandemic of Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a major public health challenge, and an effective vaccine is the potential mechanism to resolve this specific situation. The present study aimed to evaluate acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among patients attending the Oncology Clinic of University Clinical Hospital Mostar. MATERIAL AND METHODS This cross-sectional observational study enrolled 364 patients with cancer from the Oncology Clinic of University Clinical Hospital Mostar during February 2021. Data were collected using a questionnaire that captured general information about the participants and their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS Of the participants, 41.8% answered "Yes" when asked if they would take the vaccine once it becomes available, 37.6% answered "Not sure", and 20.6% answered "No". For patients in favor of vaccination, the main reasons reported were fear of getting sick (77.6%), the desire to contribute to herd immunity (57.8%), and trusting the recommendations of health professionals (57.2%). The main reasons for the patients' vaccination -refusal/indecision were doubts about the results from clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines (49.1%), concerns about adverse effects (24.5%), and confusion about the various vaccine options (19.8%). The majority of participants (82.4%) stated that recommendation by their oncologist could influence their decision about vaccination. Of the participants who indicated unwillingness (refusal or indecision) to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 65.3% stated that recommendation by their oncologist could influence their decision about vaccination. CONCLUSIONS The findings from the present study showed most patients had refused or were indecisive regarding immunization with COVID-19 vaccine. Increasing physician awareness of this situation may result in higher rates of vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Neoplasms/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Universities
9.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0259059, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496525

ABSTRACT

As safe and effective vaccines become widely available, attaining herd immunity and limiting the spread of COVID-19 will depend on individuals choosing to vaccinate-and doing so quickly enough to outpace mutations. Using online surveys conducted across six Latin American countries in January 2021, we experimentally assess messages designed to counteract informational deficiencies and collective action problems that may drive hesitancy. We first find that basic vaccine information persuades around 8% of hesitant individuals to become willing to vaccinate, reduces intended wait to vaccinate by 0.4 months, and increases willingness to encourage others to vaccinate. Rather than facilitating free riding, learning, or social conformity, additional information about others' behavior increases vaccine acceptance when respondents expect herd immunity will be achieved. Finally, priming the social approval benefits of vaccinating also increases vaccine acceptance. These results suggest that providing information and shaping social expectations and incentives could both significantly increase vaccine uptake.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Vaccination Refusal/psychology , Vaccination/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Latin America , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Persuasive Communication , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Refusal/trends , Vaccines/pharmacology
10.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI13-SI24, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493950

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in quality of life, disease-specific indicators, health and lifestyle before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with musculoskeletal diagnoses and symptoms. METHODS: We undertook an additional follow-up of two existing UK registers involving people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and participants in a trial in the UK who had regional pain and were identified at high risk of developing chronic widespread pain. Participants completed the study questionnaire between July and December 2020, throughout which time there were public health restrictions in place. RESULTS: The number of people taking part in the study was 1054 (596 axSpA, 162 PsA, 296 regional pain). In comparison with their previous (pre-pandemic) assessment, there was an age-adjusted significant, small decrease in quality of life measured by EQ-5D [-0.020 (95% CI -0.030, -0.009)] overall and across all population groups examined. This was primarily related to poorer mental health and pain. There was a small increase in fibromyalgia symptoms, but a small decrease in sleep problems. There was a small deterioration in axSpA disease activity, and disease-specific quality of life and anxiety in PsA participants. Predictors of poor quality of life were similar pre- and during the pandemic. The effect of lockdown on activity differed according to age, gender and deprivation. CONCLUSION: Important lessons include focusing on addressing anxiety and providing enhanced support for self-management in the absence of normal health care being available, and awareness that all population groups are likely to be affected.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Pain/psychology , Communicable Disease Control , Musculoskeletal Diseases/psychology , Quality of Life , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
12.
Pan Afr Med J ; 40: 26, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472502

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the COVID-19 pandemic since its emergence has posed a great danger to the health of the general populace while impacting the Nigerian healthcare delivery significantly. Since its emergence, the health system has been stretched with overwhelming responsibilities. The study assessed health providers´ perceived impact of coronavirus pandemic on the uptake of health care services in South West Nigeria. Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional design using an online structured survey was used to elicit responses from 385 Nigerian health workers selected by convenience sampling technique. Data analysis was done with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26. Comparison of the uptake of healthcare before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was performed using the Chi-square test. Results: findings revealed a significant difference between the uptake of health care prior and during the COVID-19 pandemic (χ2= 92.77, p=0.000) as 253 respondents (65.7%) reported that the hospital recorded a low turn-out of patients during the pandemic and 184 (47.8%) indicated that some of the facility units/departments were temporarily closed due to COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, there was a significant difference between health-related conditions requiring hospital admission before and during COVID-19 pandemic (χ2=3.334 p=0.046). Factors influencing uptake of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic are: fear of nosocomial infection, fear of stigmatization, and misconception/misinformation on COVID-19 diseases and care. Conclusion: the Nigerian health system in the past months has been remarkably impacted by the pandemic. This calls for immediate restructuring to maintain an equitable distribution of care, while minimizing risk to patients and health providers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Adult , Anxiety , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fear , Female , Health Personnel , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nigeria , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
13.
Glob Health Res Policy ; 6(1): 38, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked heated debate among scholars on the relevance of lockdowns. There are those in favor of the lockdown and others who are critical of it. However, despite the increased interest in understanding the relevance of lockdowns, there still has not been much focus on its relevance in countries like Zambia. Thus, with the help of the Social Representation Theory (SRT), we set out to explore and document the local characterization of the lockdown by residents of Lusaka, Zambia. METHODS: We recruited our participants through convenient and purposive sampling techniques. This was done through the use of the ZAMTEL public phone records. Initial contact was made to potential participants, and they were asked of their availability and willingness to participate in the interview. Upon agreeing to participate, they were included in the sample. A total of 68 people were selected to take part in this study. Their age ranged from 20 to 76 years old. 33 of them were male and 35 females. After this, we conducted interviews with the 68 participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, our interviews were conducted via telephone in conformity with the recommendations from the IRB in Lusaka and the advice of the ministry of health. We anonymized the demographic characteristics and responses from our participants. Later, thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The lockdown was on one hand lauded for slowing down the incidence rates, preventing fatalities, and protecting the healthcare system from collapse. On the other hand, it was criticized for exacerbating poverty levels, unemployment rates, increasing the rate of mental health problems, aiding gender-based violence, and intensifying political repression and corruption. The results speak to the complexity in the characterization of the lockdown as a response to COVID-19 in Lusaka, Zambia. This observation demonstrates the folly of viewing, applying and characterizing the COVID-19 lockdown as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in Lusaka, Zambia. CONCLUSION: Rather than establishing the lockdown as an incontestable good, as it is depicted by some scholars or as useless by its critics, our findings instead demonstrate the diversity and complexity in how it is locally viewed by Lusaka residents. The study provides grounds for caution on simplistic and binary characterization of lockdowns. It indicates the need for careful dialog between the designers of lockdowns and citizens in order to tailor such interventions to local realities in context-specific ways. It also shows that though the development of such interventions, all the various and complex elements it embodies must be taken into account in order to realize optimum outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/psychology , Cities , Communicable Disease Control/instrumentation , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Young Adult , Zambia
14.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(9): e2126635, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441916

ABSTRACT

Importance: Ensuring widespread uptake of available COVID-19 vaccinations, each with different safety and efficacy profiles, is essential to combating the unfolding pandemic. Objective: To test communication interventions that may encourage the uptake of less-preferred vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This online survey was conducted from March 24 to 30, 2021, using a nonprobability convenience sample of Canadian citizens aged 18 years or older, with quota sampling to match 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks on age, gender, region, and language. Respondents completed a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment with random assignment of brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson), information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic infection (yes or no), and information about the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no) before being asked about their willingness to receive their assigned vaccine and their beliefs about its effectiveness. Exposures: Respondents were randomly assigned a vaccine brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson) and information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (yes or no) and at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no). Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents' self-reported likelihood of taking their assigned vaccine if offered (response categories: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely, scaled 0-1) and their beliefs about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness (response categories: very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or not at all effective, scaled 0-1) were measured. Results: A total of 2556 Canadian adults responded to the survey (median [IQR] age, 50 [34-63] years; 1339 women [52%]). The self-reported likelihood of taking an assigned AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine was higher for respondents given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) and lower among those given information about its overall effectiveness at preventing symptomatic transmission (b, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00), compared with those who were not given the information. Perceived effectiveness was also higher among those given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05) and lower among those given information about their assigned vaccine's overall efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection (b, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03), compared with those who were not given this information. The interaction between these treatments was neither substantively nor statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that providing information on the effectiveness of less-preferred vaccines at preventing death from COVID-19 is associated with more confidence in their effectiveness and less vaccine-specific hesitancy. These results can inform public health communication strategies to reduce hesitancy toward specific COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Education/methods , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Treatment Refusal/psychology , Vaccination/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/psychology , Canada , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Persuasive Communication , Self Report , Treatment Refusal/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
16.
Acta Neuropsychiatr ; 33(5): 273-276, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1392713

ABSTRACT

Patients with mental illness are at an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality, and prioritisation of this group for COVID-19 vaccination programmes has therefore been suggested. Vaccine uptake may, however, be compromised by vaccine hesitancy amongst patients with mental illness, posing a critical public health issue. We conducted two surveys to provide weighted estimates of vaccine willingness amongst patients with mental illness and the general population of Denmark. Vaccine willingness was high in both groups, but slightly lower amongst patients with mental illness (84.8%), compared with the general population (89.5%) (p < .001). Based on these findings, vaccine hesitancy does not appear to be a major barrier for vaccine uptake amongst patients with mental illness in Denmark, but may be so in other countries with lower general vaccine willingness. Replication of the present study in other countries is strongly warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/psychology , Mental Disorders/immunology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Case-Control Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/mortality , Mental Disorders/virology , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires
17.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 317, 2021 Apr 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388757

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To identify the determinants of health care use among homeless individuals. METHODS: Data were taken from the Hamburg survey of homeless individuals (n = 100 individuals in the here used model, mean age 44.8 years, SD 12.5) focusing on homeless individuals in Hamburg, Germany. The number of physician visits in the past 3 months and hospitalization in the preceding 12 months were used as outcome measures. Drawing on the Andersen model of health care use as a conceptual framework, predisposing characteristics, enabling resources and need factors as well as psychosocial variables were included as correlates. RESULTS: Negative binomial regressions showed that increased physician visits were associated with being female (IRR: 4.02 [95% CI: 1.60-10.11]), absence of chronic alcohol consume (IRR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.12-0.57]) and lower health-related quality of life (IRR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.96-0.98]). Furthermore, logistic regressions showed that the likelihood of hospitalization was positively associated with lower age (OR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.89-0.98]), having health insurance (OR: 8.11 [2.11-30.80]) and lower health-related quality of life (OR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.94-0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that predisposing characteristics (both age and sex), enabling resources (i.e., health insurance) and need factors in terms of health-related quality of life are main drivers of health care use among homeless individuals. This knowledge may assist in managing health care use.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Services Accessibility , Homeless Persons , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Adult , Delivery of Health Care , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Homeless Persons/psychology , Humans , Male , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
19.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 15(5): 102271, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385430

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The survey aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rate among patients with diabetes and address barriers and beliefs that affect acceptance to take COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: A quantitative research approach with cross-sectional design was used to collect data from March-May'2021. Saudi residents with diabetes, aged ≥18 years were included. RESULTS: Of the total 709 participants, 42.2% had family member with COVID-19, 14.7% had COVID-19, 34.0% had been with someone who had COVID-19. 34.7% of participants taken COVID-19 vaccination, 36.2% were willing to take, while 79.0% supported COVID-19 vaccine. Main reasons behind uncertainties towards vaccinations were relatively fast production, not many trials done and about genetic component. 44.6% got information about COVID-19 and vaccination through television, social media, and ministry website. On adjusting models, female gender, longer duration of diabetes and no history of influenza vaccine significantly associated with COVID vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: Participants are willing to vaccinate but show some fear and misinformation. It is imperative that due efforts are made for increasing vaccine willingness, and availability of precise information holds key to success. Otherwise, state will have to continue to funnel in resources towards post-on-set disease management, consuming a lot more resources than preventive measures like vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Vaccination Refusal , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus/psychology , Female , Health Behavior , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Refusal/psychology , Vaccination Refusal/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...