Understanding factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among health care workers using the Diffusion of Innovation Theory.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccine was initially offered to frontline health care workers (HCWs), due to the high risk of contracting COVID-19 through occupational exposure to patients. Low HCW vaccine uptake can impact overall community-level vaccine uptake. This study used the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory to understand factors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in HCWs. METHODS: We surveyed Pennsylvanian HCWs (excluding Philadelphia) from August 2022 to February 2023. Survey questions inquired about demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, reasons for receiving/declining the COVID-19 vaccine, and sources of information about the vaccine. RESULTS: Participants (n = 3,490) were 85% female, 89% White, and 93% (n = 3,255) reported receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. HCWs were categorized into adopter categories of the DOI Theory: innovators (56%), early adopters (9%), early majority (11%), late majority (7%), and laggards (17%). The major reason that prompted participants to get the vaccine was to protect them against COVID-19 infection (78%), while the major reason for declining the vaccine was due to concern about possible side effects from the vaccine (78%). CONCLUSIONS: We applied the DOI Theory to characterize adopters and identify factors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in HCWs. As updated COVID-19 vaccines are approved for the United States market, our findings may be used to improve vaccine education and communication among HCWs to support vaccine uptake.

Associations Between Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Decisions and Exposure to Vaccine Information in Social Media.

PURPOSE: Exposure to different types of vaccine information in social media can result in parents making disparate vaccine decisions, including not following national guidelines for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. We sought to characterize parents' exposure to and engagement with information about HPV vaccination in social media, and the associations between exposure to such information and vaccine decisions for their adolescent children. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted a web-based survey with a national sample of 1073 parents of adolescents who use social media. The survey assessed whether parents have seen information in favor, against, or mixed about HPV vaccination. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed correlates of vaccine decisions, including HPV vaccine initiation, delay, and refusal. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of parents reported that their children have initiated HPV vaccination. Over one-third of parents (37%) reported seeing HPV vaccine information on social media, which was either in favor (20%), against (5%), or a mix (12%). Parents exposed to information in favor were more likely than those who saw no information to have initiated HPV vaccination (OR = 1.74, 95% CI:1.24, 2.44). Parents exposed to information against vaccination were more likely to have delayed (OR = 3.29, 95% CI:1.66, 6.51) or refused (OR = 4.72, 95% CI:2.35, 9.50) HPV vaccination. Exposure to mixed information was also significantly associated with vaccine delay and refusal. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the type of information seen on social media regarding HPV vaccination may influence the decisions parents make about vaccinating their children. Efforts should be sought to increase online information in favor of HPV vaccination and combat vaccine misinformation in social media.

Support for HPV vaccine school-entry requirements in the United States: The role of exemption policies.

In the United States (U.S.), only five states or territories require human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for school attendance, even though almost all U.S. jurisdictions have debated adopting this type of policy. In this U.S. based study, we sought to estimate the level of support for HPV vaccine school-entry requirements with varying exemption policies and documentation procedures to obtain exemptions. Between July and August 2019, we conducted a web-based survey with a national sample of 1,109 U.S. parents of 11- to 17-year-olds. The survey assessed support for four school-entry vaccine requirement policies: without exemption or with exemption for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. Analyses used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of support for each policy. Overall, 38% of parents agreed with laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance without exemptions. When including exemption provisions, agreement increased to 45% for philosophical reasons, 50% for religious reasons, and 59% for medical reasons. Parents more often agreed on requirements without any exemptions if they were female (OR = 1.37, 95% CI:1.01-1.87), their child had initiated HPV vaccination (OR = 2.05, 95% CI:1.50-2.87), reported high levels of vaccine confidence (OR = 2.41, 95% CI:1.77-3.27), or reported having values similar to those of the people in their community (OR = 1.85, 95% CI:1.39-2.47). Parents more often agreed with requirements that included religious or philosophical exemptions if they reported having values similar to their community or high levels of psychological reactance (all p <.05). Many parents also supported requiring a written notice signed by a health care provider (40%) or religious leader (49%) to obtain a medical or religious exemption, respectively. In conclusion, exemption policies greatly increase parent support of school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination but may decrease their impact in practice. A large number of U.S. parents support strict documentation to obtain exemptions, signaling a promising area of policymaking to strengthen vaccine policies for school attendance.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients. METHODS: Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact. RESULTS: A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.

COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake and Hesitancy Among Current Tobacco Users.

Novel mRNA vaccines have been developed and were first distributed to high-risk individuals (including smokers) in the United States starting in December 2020 to combat the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Over one-half of the U.S. adult population has received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but many others have reported hesitation about becoming vaccinated. We examined COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy from a convenience sample of Pennsylvanian adult smokers in April 2021, approximately 3 months after tobacco users were eligible to receive vaccination in the state. Participants (n = 231) were 23.4% male, 90.5% white, and had a mean age of 48.1 (SD = 11.9) years. All participants were current tobacco users, with the majority reporting current cigarette smoking (90.9%) with an average of 16 (SD = 8.1) cigarettes smoked per day. Nearly 60% (n = 137) reported receiving at least 1 dose of the vaccine and of those who did not (n = 94), 84% (n = 79) said they were somewhat or very unlikely to get a vaccine. Those who were unvaccinated were more likely to not consume news about COVID-19 (chi-square P-value < .01) and less likely to believe government news sources as reliable information for COVID-19 (chi-square P-value < .01). Qualitative responses among those who were vaccine hesitant expressed concerns about the lack of research on the vaccine, distrust of the safety of the vaccine, and fears about side effects. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among tobacco users can help develop targeted communication strategies and directly address concerns to promote vaccination among this population who may be at an increased risk of severe complications from COVID-19.