Changes in vaccine hesitancy among parents of children aged 6 months - 17 Years, National Immunization Surveys, 2019-2022.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has been a major contributor to large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases globally, including in the United States. METHODS: Data from the 2019-2022 National Immunization Surveys were analyzed to assess parental hesitancy toward routine vaccination of their children aged 6 months -17 years. Joinpoint regression was employed to investigate trends in VH from 2019 to 2022 nationally overall and among socio-demographic subgroups. Using logistic regression, the difference between the prevalence of VH before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months-4 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years was computed. Both unadjusted and adjusted estimates were reported. VH was also compared within each socio-demographic subgroup with a reference level, at two-time points- before and after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for each age group. RESULTS: Overall, VH remained around 19.0 % from Q2 2019 to Q3 2022. Parents of non-Hispanic Black children had the largest average quarterly decrease in VH (ß = -0.55; p < 0.05 by test for trend). After the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months to 4 years, the adjusted percentage of children having parents that reported VH decreased by 2.2 (95 % CI: -3.9, -0.6) percentage points (pp) from 21.6 % to 19.4 %. Conversely, for children aged 5-11 years, VH increased by 1.2 (95 % CI: 0.2, 2.3) pp, from 19.8 % to 21.0 %. VH among parents of non-Hispanic Black children decreased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 12-17 years but remained significantly higher compared to parents of non-Hispanic White children before and after authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for all age groups. DISCUSSION: About 1 in 5 children had parents reporting VH from 2019 to 2022. Parental VH increased after the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years and declined for children aged 6 months-4 years.

Changes in Diabetes Care and Management Practices during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Evidence suggests diabetes management was negatively impacted early in the pandemic. However, the impact of the pandemic on key healthcare services for diabetes control and diabetes self-management practices is less known. We examined changes in diabetes care and management practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Population-based data regarding 4 diabetes-related healthcare engagement and 4 self-management indicators were obtained from adults with diabetes surveyed in 19 US States and Washington DC through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Using logistic regression, we estimated changes in the prevalence of each indicator, overall and by sociodemographic subgroups, before (2019; n = 15,307) and during (2021; n = 13,994) the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Between 2019 and 2021, the prevalence of biannual HbA1c tests reduced by 2.6 percentage points (pp, 95% CI :-4.8, -0.4), from 75.4-73.1%, and prevalence of annual eye exams fell by 4.0 pp (-6.2, -2.8), from 72.2-68.7%. The composite indicator of engagement with healthcare for diabetes control fell by 3.5 pp (-5.9, -1.1), from 44.9-41.9%. Reductions in engagement with healthcare were largely seen across sex, age, education, employment status, marital status, insurance status, and urbanicity; and were more pronounced among those aged 18-34 and the uninsured. Reductions in engagement with healthcare were seen in several states, with Delaware and Washington DC reporting the largest decrease. Of self-management behaviors, we only observed change in avoidance of smoking, an increase of 2.0 pp (0.4, 3.6) from 84.7-87.1%. Conclusions: The pandemic had mixed impacts on diabetes care and self-management. The findings suggest a deterioration of the uptake of evidence-based, preventive health services requiring laboratory services and clinical examination for diabetes control during the pandemic. On the other hand, smoking rates decreased, suggesting potential positive impacts of the pandemic on health behaviors in people with diabetes.

National Changes in Diabetes Care Practices during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Prospective Study of US Adults.

Background: There is a lack of nationally representative prospective data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes care and management in adults with type 2 diabetes. We examined changes in diabetes care and management practices before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Using the National Health Interview Survey, we analyzed data from 870 adults living with type 2 diabetes who were interviewed in 2019 and re-interviewed between August and December 2020. Exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic was defined by year of survey (2019, pre-pandemic; 2020, pandemic). We estimated percent change in past year blood sugar check by a health professional and current use of blood sugar lowering medication overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. Results: Receiving an annual blood sugar test fell by -3.3 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -5.7, -1.0), from 98.3% in 2019 to 95.0% in late 2020. The reduction in annual blood glucose testing was largely consistent across socio-demographic groups and was particularly pronounced among adults not working and adults aged 65 years and older. In the same time period, current use of diabetes medications increased by +3.8 pp (0.7, 6.9), from 85.9% to 89.7%. The increase in medication use was most pronounced among individuals aged 40-64-year old, employed, and those living in large central metropolitan areas. Conclusions: Nationally, adults with Type 2 diabetes reported a reduction in annual blood glucose testing by a health professional and an increase in diabetes medication usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. If sustained after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, these changes have implications for national diabetes management and care.

The Association of Reported Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Health Care with COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Intent - United States, April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022.

In 2021, the CDC Director declared that racism is a serious threat to public health,* reflecting a growing awareness of racism as a cause of health inequities, health disparities, and disease. Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19-related hospitalization and death (1,2) illustrate the need to examine root causes, including experiences of discrimination. This report describes the association between reported experiences of discrimination in U.S. health care settings and COVID-19 vaccination status and intent to be vaccinated by race and ethnicity during April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022, based on the analysis of interview data collected from 1,154,347 respondents to the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM). Overall, 3.5% of adults aged ≥18 years reported having worse health care experiences compared with persons of other races and ethnicities (i.e., they experienced discrimination), with significantly higher percentages reported by persons who identified as non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (10.7%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (7.2%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (multiple or other race) (6.7%), Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) (4.5%), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) (3.9%), and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (2.8%) than by non-Hispanic White (White) persons (1.6%). Unadjusted differences in prevalence of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 among respondents reporting worse health care experiences than persons of other races and ethnicities compared with those who reported that their health care experiences were the same as those of persons of other races and ethnicities were statistically significant overall (5.3) and for NHOPI (19.2), White (10.5), multiple or other race (5.7), Black (4.6), Asian (4.3), and Hispanic (2.6) adults. Findings were similar for vaccination intent. Eliminating inequitable experiences in health care settings might help reduce some disparities in receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States, August-November 2021.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions.

COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination Coverage and Factors Associated with Booster Vaccination among Adults, United States, March 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for all persons >18 years of age. We analyzed data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during February 27-March 26, 2022 to assess COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage among adults. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with vaccination. COVID-19 booster dose coverage among fully vaccinated adults increased from 25.7% in November 2021 to 63.4% in March 2022. Coverage was lower among non-Hispanic Black (52.7%), and Hispanic (55.5%) than non-Hispanic White adults (67.7%). Coverage was 67.4% among essential healthcare personnel, 62.2% among adults who had a disability, and 69.9% among adults who had medical conditions. Booster dose coverage was not optimal, and disparities by race/ethnicity and other factors are apparent in coverage uptake. Tailored strategies are needed to educate the public and reduce disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent among women aged 18-49 years by pregnancy status, United States, April-November 2021.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States. METHODS: Data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18-49 years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent. RESULTS: Our analyses included 110,925 women aged 18-49 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women. DISCUSSION: Our findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.

Identification of groups at high risk for under-coverage of seasonal influenza vaccination: A national study to inform vaccination priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Seasonal influenza vaccination is an important public health strategy to reduce preventable illness, hospitalization, and death. Because of overlapping risk factors for severe illness from seasonal influenza and COVID-19, uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccination has heightened importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed receipt of seasonal influenza vaccination among COVID-19 priority groups and further examined socio-demographic and behavioral factors associated with receiving the seasonal influenza vaccine among US adults. METHODS: Using the 2018 National Health Interview Survey, we classified 24,772 adults into four COVID-19 priority groups: healthcare workers, medically vulnerable, non-healthcare essential workers, and the general population. We performed multiple logistic regression to compare the relative odds of receiving the influenza vaccine by COVID-19 priority group, socio-demographics, and health-related factors. RESULTS: Healthcare workers, medically vulnerable adults, essential workers, and the general population comprised 8.9%, 58.4%, 6.6%, and 26.1 % of the US population, respectively. Compared with healthcare workers, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of receiving influenza vaccine were significantly lower in medically vulnerable adults (aOR=0.43, 95% CI=0.37, 0.48), essential workers (aOR=0.28, 95% CI=0.23, 0.34), and the general population (aOR=0.32, 95% CI=0.28, 0.37). Being young, male, Black, and having no health insurance were associated with lower relative odds of receiving the flu vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of influenza vaccine cause concern for under-coverage of populations at high risk for both seasonal influenza and COVID-19. Achieving optimal protection against vaccine-preventable respiratory illness in US adults will require emphasis on those employed outside of the healthcare sector, younger age groups, and adults with lower socioeconomic resources.

A model for national assessment of barriers for implementing digital technology interventions to improve hypertension management in the public health care system in India.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial interest in leveraging digital health technology to support hypertension management in low- and middle-income countries such as India. The potential for healthcare infrastructure and broader context to support such initiatives in India has not been examined. We evaluated existing healthcare infrastructure to support digital health interventions and examined epidemiologic, socioeconomic, and geographical contextual correlates of healthcare infrastructure in 544 districts covering 29 states and union territories across India. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of India's Fourth District Level Household and Facility Survey (DLHS-4; 2012-2014), the most up-to-date nationally representative district-level healthcare infrastructure data. Facilities were the unit of analysis, and analyses accounted for clustering within states. The main outcome was healthcare system infrastructural context to implement hypertension management programs. Domains included diagnostics (functional BP instrument), medications (anti-hypertensive medication in stock), essential clinical staff (e.g., staff nurse, medical officer, pharmacist), and IT specific infrastructure (regular power supply, internet connection, computer availability). Descriptive analysis was conducted for infrastructure indicators based on the Indian Public Health Standards, and logistic regression was conducted to estimate the association between epidemiologic and geographical context (exposures) and the composite measure of healthcare system. RESULTS: Data from 32,215 government facilities were analyzed. Among lowest-tier subcenters, 30% had some IT infrastructure, while at the highest-tier district hospitals, 92% possessed IT infrastructure. At mid-tier primary health centres and community health centres, IT infrastructure availability was 28 and 51%, respectively. For all but sub-centres, the availability of essential staff was lower than the availability of IT infrastructure. For all but district hospitals, higher levels of blood pressure, body mass index, and urban residents were correlated with more favorable infrastructure. By region, districts in Western India tended towards having the best prepared health facilities. CONCLUSIONS: IT infrastructure to support digital health interventions is more frequently lacking at lower and mid-tier healthcare facilities compared with apex facilities in India. Gaps were generally larger for staffing than physical infrastructure, suggesting that beyond IT infrastructure, shortages in essential staff impose significant constraints to the adoption of digital health interventions. These data provide early benchmarks for state- and district-level planning.

Demographic benchmarks for equitable coverage of the COVID-19 vaccination program among priority populations.

We report the demographic distribution of non-institutionalized populations in the US who are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination by ethnicity, age and sex and region. The composition of non-institutionalized priority populations was estimated using a nationally representative sample of 25,417 adults interviewed in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 2018. A relatively large fraction of individuals prioritized for the earliest distribution of the vaccine are women, non-Hispanic Black, and young to middle aged adults. Overall, the study provides a platform to track equity in vaccine coverage and to better tailor health communication strategies.