Project description:BackgroundAnticipating an initial shortage of vaccines for COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States developed priority vaccine allocations for specific demographic groups in the population. This study evaluates the performance of the CDC vaccine allocation strategy with respect to multiple potentially competing vaccination goals (minimizing mortality, cases, infections, and years of life lost (YLL)), under the same framework as the CDC allocation: four priority vaccination groups and population demographics stratified by age, comorbidities, occupation and living condition (congested or non-congested).Methods and findingsWe developed a compartmental disease model that incorporates key elements of the current pandemic including age-varying susceptibility to infection, age-varying clinical fraction, an active case-count dependent social distancing level, and time-varying infectivity (accounting for the emergence of more infectious virus strains). The CDC allocation strategy is compared to all other possibly optimal allocations that stagger vaccine roll-out in up to four phases (17.5 million strategies). The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all vaccination goals but never optimally. Under the developed model, the CDC allocation deviated from the optimal allocations by small amounts, with 0.19% more deaths, 4.0% more cases, 4.07% more infections, and 0.97% higher YLL, than the respective optimal strategies. The CDC decision to not prioritize the vaccination of individuals under the age of 16 was optimal, as was the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers. Finally, a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes compared to the CDC allocation.ConclusionThe developed approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States, or adapted for use by other countries seeking to optimize the effectiveness of their vaccine allocation strategies.
Project description:This exploratory study investigated the web accessibility of 54 official COVID-19 vaccine registration websites in the US and their concordance with the WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 guidelines. We employed AChecker, WAVE, and SortSite web accessibility evaluation tools to conduct automated analyses of these websites. The results showed suboptimal compliance with WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 guidelines, as determined using the AChecker, WAVE, and SortSite tools. These shortcomings in compliance may pose difficulties to users with disabilities as they access information on the websites. Based on our findings, we offered recommendations for states and other authorities to improve the accessibility of their websites to ensure that users with disabilities can independently schedule vaccination appointments.
Project description:As part of a regulatory commitment for post-licensure safety monitoring of live, oral human rotavirus vaccine (RV1), this study compared the incidence rates (IR) of intussusception, acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) hospitalization, Kawasaki disease, convulsion, and mortality in RV1 recipients versus inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) recipients in concurrent (cIPV) and recent historical (hIPV) comparison cohorts. Vaccine recipients were identified in 2 claims databases from August 2008 - June 2013 (RV1 and cIPV) and January 2004 - July 2008 (hIPV). Outcomes were identified in the 0-59 days following the first 2 vaccine doses. Intussusception, Kawasaki disease, and convulsion were confirmed via medical record review. Outcome IRs were estimated. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were obtained from Poisson regression models. A post-hoc self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis compared convulsion IRs in a 0-7 day post-vaccination period to a 15-30 day post-vaccination period. We identified 57,931 RV1, 173,384 cIPV, and 159,344 hIPV recipients. No increased risks for intussusception, LRTI, Kawasaki disease, or mortality were observed. The convulsion IRRs were elevated following RV1 Dose 1 (cIPV: 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27 - 3.38; hIPV: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.24 - 3.38), a finding which is inconclusive as it was observed in only one of the claims databases. The IRR following RV1 Dose 1 in the SCCS analysis lacked precision (2.40, 95% CI: 0.73 - 7.86). No increased convulsion risk was observed following RV1 Dose 2. Overall, this study supports the favorable safety profile of RV1. Continued monitoring for safety signals through routine surveillance is needed to ensure vaccine safety.
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is the next great barrier for public health. Arab Americans are a rapidly growing demographic in the United States with limited information on the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. We therefore sought to study the attitudes towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the United States.MethodsThis was a cross sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsA total of 4000 surveys were sent via e-mail from 28 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, and 513 responses were received. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18-29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. On multivariable analysis, we found that respondents who had declined an influenza vaccine in the preceding 5 years (p < 0.001) and allied health professionals (medical assistants, hospital administrators, case managers, researchers, scribes, pharmacists, dieticians and social workers) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (p = 0.025). In addition, respondents earning over $150,000 US dollars annually were less likely to be vaccine hesitant and this finding was significant on multivariable analysis (p = 0.011).ConclusionsVaccine hesitancy among health care providers could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population, and such data may help inform vaccine advocacy efforts.
Project description:BackgroundDental therapists (DTs) are primary care dental providers, used globally, and were introduced in the United States (US) in 2005. DTs have now been adopted in 13 states and several Tribal nations.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to qualitatively examine the drivers and outcomes of the US dental therapy movement through a health equity lens, including community engagement, implementation and dissemination, and access to oral health care.MethodsThe study compiled a comprehensive document library on the dental therapy movement including literature, grant documents, media and press, and gray literature. Key stakeholder interviews were conducted across the spectrum of engagement in the movement. Dedoose software was used for qualitative coding. Themes were assessed within a holistic model of oral health equity.FindingsHealth equity is a driving force for dental therapy adoption. Community engagement has been evident in diverse statewide coalitions. National accreditation standards for education programs that can be deployed in 3 years without an advanced degree reduces educational barriers for improving workforce diversity. Safe, high-quality care, improvements in access, and patient acceptability have been well documented for DTs in practice.ConclusionHaving firmly taken root politically, the impact of the dental therapy movement in the US, and the long-term health impacts, will depend on the path of implementation and a sustained commitment to the health equity principle.
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy in the US throughout the pandemic has revealed inconsistent results. This systematic review has compared COVID-19 vaccine uptake across US and investigated predictors of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance across different groups. A search of PUBMED database was conducted till 17th July, 2021. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were screened and 65 studies were selected for a quantitative analysis. The overall vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 12 to 91.4%, the willingness of studies using the 10-point scale ranged from 3.58 to 5.12. Increased unwillingness toward COVID-19 vaccine and Black/African Americans were found to be correlated. Sex, race, age, education level, and income status were identified as determining factors of having a low or high COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A change in vaccine acceptance in the US population was observed in two studies, an increase of 10.8 and 7.4%, respectively, between 2020 and 2021. Our results confirm that hesitancy exists in the US population, highest in Black/African Americans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and low in the male sex. It is imperative for regulatory bodies to acknowledge these statistics and consequently, exert efforts to mitigate the burden of unvaccinated individuals and revise vaccine delivery plans, according to different vulnerable subgroups, across the country.
Project description:Given the scarcity of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, a chief policy question is how to allocate them among different sociodemographic groups. This paper evaluates COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies proposed to date, focusing on their stated goals; the mechanisms through which the selected allocations affect the course and burden of the pandemic; and the main epidemiological, economic, logistical, and political issues that arise when setting the prioritization strategy. The paper uses a simple, age-stratified susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered model applied to the United States to quantitatively assess the performance of alternative prioritization strategies with respect to avoided deaths, avoided infections, and life-years gained. We demonstrate that prioritizing essential workers is a viable strategy for reducing the number of cases and years of life lost, while the largest reduction in deaths is achieved by prioritizing older adults in most scenarios, even if the vaccine is effective at blocking viral transmission. Uncertainty regarding this property and potential delays in dose delivery reinforce the call for prioritizing older adults. Additionally, we investigate the strength of the equity motive that would support an allocation strategy attaching absolute priority to essential workers for a vaccine that reduces infection-fatality risk.
Project description:On 29 October 2021, the U.S. FDA authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine for emergency use in children ages 5-11 years. Racial/ethnic minorities have born the greatest burden of pediatric COVID-19 infection and hospitalization. Research indicates high prevalence of parental vaccine hesitancy among the general population, underscoring the urgency of understanding how race/ethnicity may influence parents' decision to vaccinate their children. Two weeks prior to FDA approval, 400 Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian, Black, and White parents of children 5-10 years participated in an online survey assessing determinants of COVID-19 pediatric vaccine hesitancy. Compared to 31% Black, 45% Hispanic, and 25% White parents, 62% of Asian parents planned to vaccinate their child. Bivariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression demonstrated race/ethnicity, parental vaccine status, education, financial security, perceived childhood COVID-19 susceptibility and severity, vaccine safety and efficacy concerns, community support, and FDA and physician recommendations accounted for 70.3% of variance for vaccine hesitancy. Findings underscore the importance of multipronged population targeted approaches to increase pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake including integrating health science literacy with safety and efficacy messaging, communication efforts tailored to parents who express unwillingness to vaccinate, and interventions developed in partnership with and delivered through existing trusted community coalitions.
Project description:Rationale:Health equity is a significant concern of public health, yet a comprehensive assessment of health equity in the United States over time is lacking. While one might presume that overall health will improve with rising living standards, no such presumption is warranted for health equity, which may decline even as average health improves. Objectives:To assess trends in national and state-level health equity in mortality for people up to age 25, ages 25-64 and aged 65 and older. Methods:A health equity metric was calculated as the weighted mean life expectancy relative to a benchmark level, defined as the life expectancy of the most socially-privileged subpopulation (white, non-Latinx males with a college education or higher).We analyzed 114,558,346 death records from the National Center for Health Statistics, from January 1, 1969 to December 31, 2019 to estimate health equity annually at the national and state-level. Using ICD-9/ICD-10 classification codes, inequities in health were decomposed by major causes of death. Results:From 1969 to 2019, health equity in the United States improved (+0.36 points annually [95% CI 0.31-0.41]), albeit at a slower rate over the last two decades (+0.08 points annually [95% CI 0.03-0.14] from 2000 to 2019, compared to +0.57 points annually from 1969 to 2000 [95% CI 0.50-0.65]). Health equity among those under 25 improved substantially (+0.82 points annually [95% CI 0.75-0.89]) but remained flat for adults 25-64 (-0.01 points annually [95% CI -0.03-0.003]) For those over 65, health equity displayed a downward trend (-0.08 points annually [95% CI -0.09 to -0.07]). Gains in equity from reduced unintentional injuries and homicides have been largely offset by rising mortality attributable to drug overdoses. Conclusions:The US is failing to advance health equity, especially for adults. Keeping policy-makers accountable to a summary measure of health equity may help coordinate efforts at improving population health.
Project description:Among 664,956 hospitalized COVID-19 patients during March 2020-July 2021 in the United States, select mental health conditions (i.e., anxiety, depression, bipolar, schizophrenia) were associated with increased risk for same-hospital readmission and longer length of stay. Anxiety was also associated with increased risk for intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death.