Changing Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccine among North Carolina Participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Enwezor CH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8402530 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Well-regulated clinical trials have shown FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines to be immunogenic and highly efficacious. We evaluated seroconversion rates in adults reporting ≥ 1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort study of nearly 8000 adults residing in North Carolina to validate immunogenicity using a novel approach: at-home, participant administered point-of-care testing. Overall, 91.4% had documented seroconversion within 75 days of first vaccination (median: 31 days). Participants who were older and male participants were less likely to seroconvert (adults aged 41-65: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 0.73], adults aged 66-95: aHR 0.55 [95% CI: 0.50, 0.60], compared to those 18-40; males: aHR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.87, 0.98], compared to females). Participants with evidence of prior infection were more likely to seroconvert than those without (aHR 1.50 [95% CI: 1.19, 1.88]) and those receiving BNT162b2 were less likely to seroconvert compared to those receiving mRNA-1273 (aHR 0.84 [95% CI: 0.79, 0.90]). Reporting at least one new symptom after first vaccination did not affect time to seroconversion, but participants reporting at least one new symptom after second vaccination were more likely to seroconvert (aHR 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.17]). This data demonstrates the high community-level immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines, albeit with notable differences in older adults, and feasibility of using at-home, participant administered point-of-care testing for community cohort monitoring. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04342884.
| S-EPMC9464595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In North Carolina, USA, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was associated with changing symptomology in daily surveys, including increasing rates of self-reported cough and sore throat and decreased rates of loss of taste and smell. Compared with the pre-Delta period, Delta and Omicron (pre-BA.4/BA.5) variant periods were associated with shorter symptom duration.
| S-EPMC9796200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the incidence of venous and arterial thrombosis after a COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization has been well described using data available from electronic health records (EHR), little is known about their incidence after mild infections.ObjectivesTo characterize the cumulative incidence and risk factors for thrombosis after a COVID-19 diagnosis among those identified through the EHR and those with a self-reported case.MethodsWe calculated the cumulative incidence of thromboembolism diagnoses after EHR-identified and self-reported cases in the North Carolina COVID-19 Community Partnership, a prospective, multisite, longitudinal surveillance cohort using a Kaplan-Meier approach. We performed Cox regression to estimate the hazard of a thromboembolism diagnosis after COVID-19 by comorbidities, vaccination status, and dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant.ResultsOf a cohort of comprising more than 39,500 participants from 6 North Carolina sites, there were 6271 self-reported or EHR-diagnosed cases of COVID-19 reported between July 1, 2020, and April 30, 2022, of which 46 participants were diagnosed with a new-onset thromboembolism in the 365 days after their reported case. Self-reported cases had a lower estimated cumulative incidence of 0.15% (95% CI, 0.03-0.28) by day 90 and 0.64% (95% CI, 0.30-0.97) by day 365 compared with EHR-based diagnoses that had cumulative incidences of 0.73% (95% CI, 0.36-1.09) and 1.78 (95% CI, 1.14-2.46) by days 90 and 365 (log-rank test P value <.001). Those hospitalized and with pre-existing pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases were associated with the highest risk of a thromboembolism.ConclusionWe observed a higher cumulative incidence of thromboembolism after EHR-identified COVID-19 than self-reported cases.
| S-EPMC9904855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHigh levels of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the community correlate with protection from COVID-19 illness. Measuring COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence and persistence may elucidate the level and length of protection afforded by vaccination and infection within a population.MethodsWe measured the duration of detectable anti-spike antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination in a multistate, longitudinal cohort study of almost 13,000 adults who completed daily surveys and submitted monthly dried blood spots collected at home.ResultsOverall, anti-spike antibodies persisted up to 284 days of follow-up with seroreversion occurring in only 2.4% of the study population. In adjusted analyses, risk of seroreversion increased with age (adults aged 55-64: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.19 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22, 3.92] and adults aged > 65: aHR 3.59 [95% CI: 2.07, 6.20] compared to adults aged 18-39). Adults with diabetes had a higher risk of seroreversion versus nondiabetics (aHR 1.77 [95% CI: 1.29, 2.44]). Decreased risk of seroreversion was shown for non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White (aHR 0.32 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.79]); college degree earners versus no college degree (aHR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.46, 0.81]); and those who received Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine versus Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (aHR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.26, 0.47]). An interaction between healthcare worker occupation and sex was detected, with seroreversion increased among male, non-healthcare workers.ConclusionWe established that a remote, longitudinal, multi-site study can reliably detect antibody durability following COVID-19 vaccination. The survey platform and measurement of antibody response using at-home collection at convenient intervals allowed us to explore sociodemographic factors and comorbidities and identify predictors of antibody persistence, which has been demonstrated to correlate with protection against disease. Our findings may help inform public health interventions and policies to protect those at highest risk for severe illness and assist in determining the optimal timing of booster doses.Clinical trials registry: NCT04342884.
| S-EPMC10462856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.MethodsA semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.ResultsThree content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.ConclusionSupport to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.
| S-EPMC8592386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWearing a face mask is a primary public health method to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.MethodsWe performed a nested case-control analysis within the North Carolina COVID-19 Community Research Partnership (NC-CCRP) of adults who completed daily surveillance surveys, April 2020 - February 2022. We assessed the association between self-reported mask wearing behavior during nonhousehold interactions and COVID-19 infection during 3 pandemic periods using conditional logistic regression models of risk of infection that were adjusted for demographics, vaccination status, and recent known exposure to COVID-19.ResultsAmong 3,901 cases and 27,813 date-matched controls, there was a significant interaction between mask use and time period (P < .001). Prior to July 2021, the odds of a reported infection were 66% higher (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.43-1.91) among participants reporting ≥1 day not wearing a mask compared to those who reported no days (1,592 cases, 11,717 controls). During the Delta-predominant period, the results were similar (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.23-1.89; 659 cases, 4,649 controls). This association was attenuated during the Omicron-predominant period, where odds of an infection was 16% higher (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03-1.32; 1,563 cases, 10,960 controls).ConclusionsWhile the effect of not wearing a mask remains significant, during the Omicron-predominant period we observed a decrease in the association between self-reported mask wearing and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC9537112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic put clinical research in the media spotlight globally. This article proposes a first measure of familiarity with and attitude toward clinical research in France. Drawing from the "Health Literacy Survey 2019" (HLS19) conducted online between 27 May and 5 June 2020 on a sample of the French adult population (N = 1003), we show that a significant proportion of the French population claimed some familiarity with clinical trials (64.8%) and had positive attitudes (72%) toward them. One of the important findings of this study is that positive attitudes toward clinical research exist side by side with a strong distancing from the pharmaceutical industry. While respondents acknowledged that the pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in clinical research (68.3%), only one-quarter indicated that they trust the industry (25.7%). Positive attitudes toward clinical trials were associated with familiarity with clinical trials (Odds Ratio, OR 2.97 [1.90-4.63]), financial difficulties (OR 0.63 [0.46-0.85]), as well as mistrust of doctors (0.48 [0.27-0.85]) and of scientists (OR 0.62 [0.38-0.99]). Although the French media provided a great deal of information on how clinical research works during the first months of the pandemic, there remains profound mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry in France. This suspicion can undermine crisis management, especially in the areas of vaccine development and preparation for future pandemics.
| S-EPMC7967331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, underserved communities including Blacks and Latinx are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, describe attitudes related to vaccination, and identify correlates among historically marginalized populations across 9 counties in North Carolina.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey distributed at free COVID-19 testing events in underserved rural and urban communities from August 27 -December 15, 2020. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as the response of "no" or "don't know/not sure" to whether the participant would get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it became available.ResultsThe sample comprised 948 participants including 27.7% Whites, 59.6% Blacks, 12.7% Latinx, and 63% female. 32% earned <$20K annually, 60% owned a computer and ~80% had internet access at home. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 68.9% including 62.7%, 74%, and 59.5% among Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, respectively. Between September and December, the largest decline in vaccine hesitancy occurred among Whites (27.5 percentage points), followed by Latinx (17.6) and only 12.0 points among Blacks. 51.2% of respondents reported vaccine safety concerns, 23.7% wanted others to get vaccinated first, and 63.1% would trust health care providers about the COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with hesitancy in multivariable logistic regression included being female (OR = 1.90 95%CI [1.36, 2.64]), being Black (OR = 1.68 1.16, 2.45]), calendar month (OR = 0.76 [0.63, 0.92]), safety concerns (OR = 4.28 [3.06, 5.97]), and government distrust (OR = 3.57 [2.26, 5.63]).ConclusionsThis study engaged the community to directly reach underserved minority populations at highest risk of COVID-19 that permitted assessment of vaccine hesitancy (which was much higher than national estimates), driven in part by distrust, and safety concerns.
| S-EPMC8559933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA key issue in Britain's referendum on European Union membership was the free movement of labor into Britain, with Brexit "Leavers" having more negative attitudes toward immigrants than "Remainers." Such anti-immigrant attitudes are driven by feelings of threat. The coronavirus pandemic presented a new threat in the context of ongoing Brexit negotiations. This paper examines how the COVID-19 pandemic affected anti-immigrant attitudes and how these effects differ between Leavers and Remainers.MethodsUsing an online survey in Spring 2020 of 3,708 individuals residing in the UK, we experimentally test the effect of priming COVID-19 thoughts on anti-immigrant attitudes, and examine whether this effect varies by Brexit identity.ResultsWe show that COVID-19 may exacerbate anti-immigrant attitudes among Leavers while having little effect on Remainers.ConclusionThese findings support the idea that the coronavirus pandemic might have presented a new, viral, threat that heightened anti-immigrant attitudes among certain political identities.
| S-EPMC8661841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe duration of protection afforded by coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines in the United States is unclear. Whether the increase in postvaccination infections during the summer of 2021 was caused by declining immunity over time, the emergence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant, or both is unknown.MethodsWe extracted data regarding Covid-19-related vaccination and outcomes during a 9-month period (December 11, 2020, to September 8, 2021) for approximately 10.6 million North Carolina residents by linking data from the North Carolina Covid-19 Surveillance System and the Covid-19 Vaccine Management System. We used a Cox regression model to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines in reducing the current risks of Covid-19, hospitalization, and death, as a function of time elapsed since vaccination.ResultsFor the two-dose regimens of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (30 μg per dose) and mRNA-1273 (100 μg per dose), vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 was 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1 to 94.9) and 95.9% (95% CI, 95.5 to 96.2), respectively, at 2 months after the first dose and decreased to 66.6% (95% CI, 65.2 to 67.8) and 80.3% (95% CI, 79.3 to 81.2), respectively, at 7 months. Among early recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, effectiveness decreased by approximately 15 and 10 percentage points, respectively, from mid-June to mid-July, when the delta variant became dominant. For the one-dose regimen of Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 1010 viral particles), effectiveness against Covid-19 was 74.8% (95% CI, 72.5 to 76.9) at 1 month and decreased to 59.4% (95% CI, 57.2 to 61.5) at 5 months. All three vaccines maintained better effectiveness in preventing hospitalization and death than in preventing infection over time, although the two mRNA vaccines provided higher levels of protection than Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionsAll three Covid-19 vaccines had durable effectiveness in reducing the risks of hospitalization and death. Waning protection against infection over time was due to both declining immunity and the emergence of the delta variant. (Funded by a Dennis Gillings Distinguished Professorship and the National Institutes of Health.).
| S-EPMC8781317 | biostudies-literature