Dataset Information

Variables Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy Amongst Patients with Neurological Disorders.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Given that the success of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on herd immunity, identifying patients at risk for vaccine hesitancy is imperative-particularly for those at high risk for severe COVID-19 (i.e., minorities and patients with neurological disorders).

Methods

Among patients from a large neuroscience institute in Hawaii, vaccine hesitancy was investigated in relation to over 30 sociodemographic variables and medical comorbidities, via a telephone quality improvement survey conducted between 23 January 2021 and 13 February 2021.

Results

Vaccine willingness (n = 363) was 81.3%. Univariate analysis identified that the odds of vaccine acceptance reduced for patients who do not regard COVID-19 as a severe illness, are of younger age, have a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, use illicit drugs, or carry Medicaid insurance. Multivariable logistic regression identified the best predictors of vaccine hesitancy to be: social media use to obtain COVID-19 information, concerns regarding vaccine safety, self-perception of a preexisting medical condition contraindicated with vaccination, not having received the annual influenza vaccine, having some high school education only, being a current smoker, and not having a prior cerebrovascular accident. Unique amongst males, a conservative political view strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. Specifically for Asians, a higher body mass index, while for Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (NHPI), a positive depression screen, both reduced the odds of vaccine acceptance.

Conclusion

Upon identifying the variables associated with vaccine hesitancy amongst patients with neurological disorders, our clinic is now able to efficiently provide ancillary COVID-19 education to sub-populations at risk for vaccine hesitancy. While our results may be limited to the sub-population of patients with neurological disorders, the findings nonetheless provide valuable insight to understanding vaccine hesitancy.

SUBMITTER: Ghaffari-Rafi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482072 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Medical students are likely to be exposed to COVID-19 patients so achieving high vaccination coverage rates for this group of healthcare workers is important, as is their potential as vaccination role models. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the current literature to determine the rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, and associated factors, amongst medical students. Systematic searches of the Medline Ovid, Embase, PubMed, and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) online databases was conducted for relevant articles with keywords: 'COVID-19', 'vaccine hesitancy & acceptance' and 'medical students'. Articles were included for review if they reported the rates of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, and associated factors, amongst medical students. Of the 258 articles identified, 52 met the inclusion criteria and underwent full-text review. Rates of vaccine hesitancy ranged from 5.4-86.7%, with generally positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. The main factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines due to their accelerated development, being a pre-clinical medical student, and low perceived personal risk of COVID-19 infection. Inconsistencies were found for the influence of gender on attitudes towards vaccinations. Previous vaccination behaviours were predictive of willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Knowledge about COVID-19 vaccinations and their importance was found to be deficient amongst vaccine hesitant medical students. Generally, medical students express low levels of vaccine hesitancy. However, due to the variability in the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy across different populations and the dynamic and contextual nature of hesitancy, it is recommended that vaccination intent and associated attitudes are monitored on a longitudinal basis. It is important to map vaccine hesitancy at a local level to allow medical schools to develop strategies to encourage vaccination specific to their school's needs.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic exposed weaknesses in multiple domains and widened gender-based inequalities across the world. It also stimulated extraordinary scientific achievement by bringing vaccines to the public in less than a year. In this article, we discuss the implications of current vaccination guidance for pregnant and lactating women, if their exclusion from the first wave of vaccine trials was justified, and if a change in the current vaccine development pathway is necessary. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first vaccine regulatory approvals have been accompanied by inconsistent advice from public health, governmental, and professional authorities around the world. Denying vaccination to women who, although pregnant or breastfeeding, are fully capable of autonomous decision making is a throwback to a paternalistic era. Conversely, lack of evidence generated in a timely manner, upon which to make an informed decision, shifts responsibility from research sponsors and regulators and places the burden of decision making upon the woman and her healthcare advisor. The World Health Organization, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women, and others have highlighted the long-standing disadvantage experienced by women in relation to the development of vaccines and medicines. It is uncertain whether there was sufficient justification for excluding pregnant and lactating women from the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. In future, we recommend that regulators mandate plans that describe the development pathway for new vaccines and medicines that address the needs of women who are pregnant or lactating. These should incorporate, at the outset, a careful consideration of the balance of the risks of exclusion from or inclusion in initial studies, patient and public perspectives, details of "developmental and reproductive toxicity" studies, and approaches to collect data systematically from participants who are unknowingly pregnant at the time of exposure. This requires careful consideration of any previous knowledge about the mode of action of the vaccine and the likelihood of toxicity or teratogenicity. We also support the view that the default position should be a "presumption of inclusion," with exclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating only if justified on specific, not generic, grounds. Finally, we recommend closer coordination across countries with the aim of issuing consistent public health advice.