Impact of an Education Intervention on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Base Population.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention. METHOD: An education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc. RESULTS: Five hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent. CONCLUSION: Our education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.

Perceptions and Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in a Military Base Population.

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population.

Pre-End-Stage Renal Disease Care and Early Survival among Incident Dialysis Patients in the US Military Health System.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports showed an increased early mortality after chronic dialysis initiation among the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population. We hypothesized that ESRD patients in the Military Health System (MHS) would have greater access to pre-ESRD care and hence better survival rates during this early high-risk period. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, using the US Renal Data System database, we identified 1,256,640 patients initiated on chronic dialysis from January 2, 2004 through December 31, 2014, from which a bootstrap sample of 3,984 non-MHS incident dialysis patients were compared with 996 MHS patients. We assessed care by a nephrologist and dietitian, erythropoietin administration, and vascular access use at dialysis initiation as well as all-cause mortality as outcome variables. RESULTS: MHS patients were significantly more likely to have had pre-ESRD nephrology care (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.9; 95% CI 2.3-3.7) and arteriovenous fistula used at dialysis initiation (aOR 2.2; 95% CI 1.7-2.7). Crude mortality rates peaked between the 4th and the 8th week for both cohorts but were reduced among MHS patients. The baseline adjusted Cox model showed significantly lower death rates among MHS vs. non-MHS patients at 6, 9, and 12 months. This survival advantage among MHS patients was attenuated after further adjustment for pre-ESRD nephrology care and dialysis vascular access. CONCLUSIONS: MHS patients had improved survival within the first 12 months compared to the general ESRD population, which may be explained in part by differences in pre-ESRD nephrology care and vascular access types.

A review of the interaction among dietary antioxidants and reactive oxygen species.

During normal cellular activities, various processes inside of cells produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Some of the most common ROS are hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)), superoxide ion (O(2)(-)), and hydroxide radical (OH(-)). These compounds, when present in a high enough concentration, can damage cellular proteins and lipids or form DNA adducts that may promote carcinogenic activity. The purpose of antioxidants in a physiological setting is to prevent ROS concentrations from reaching a high-enough level within a cell that damage may occur. Cellular antioxidants may be enzymatic (catalase, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase) or nonenzymatic (glutathione, thiols, some vitamins and metals, or phytochemicals such as isoflavones, polyphenols, and flavanoids). Reactive oxygen species are a potential double-edged sword in disease prevention and promotion. Whereas generation of ROS once was viewed as detrimental to the overall health of the organism, advances in research have shown that ROS play crucial roles in normal physiological processes including response to growth factors, the immune response, and apoptotic elimination of damaged cells. Notwithstanding these beneficial functions, aberrant production or regulation of ROS activity has been demonstrated to contribute to the development of some prevalent diseases and conditions, including cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The topic of antioxidant usage and ROS is currently receiving much attention because of studies linking the use of some antioxidants with increased mortality in primarily higher-risk populations and the lack of strong efficacy data for protection against cancer and heart disease, at least in populations with adequate baseline dietary consumption. In normal physiological processes, antioxidants effect signal transduction and regulation of proliferation and the immune response. Reactive oxygen species have been linked to cancer and CVD, and antioxidants have been considered promising therapy for prevention and treatment of these diseases, especially given the tantalizing links observed between diets high in fruits and vegetables (and presumably antioxidants) and decreased risks for cancer.