Dataset Information

Health Care Personnel (HCP) attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination after emergency use authorization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We previously reported on COVID-19 vaccination intent among HCP before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and non-clinical staff, researchers, and trainees between February 21 and March 19, 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent and acceptance.

Results

Overall, 3,981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (p<0.001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (p<0.001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), while staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all >80% vaccine acceptance.

Conclusions

The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

SUBMITTER: Shaw J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Project description:ImportanceAnnual influenza vaccinations are currently recommended for all health care personnel (HCP) to limit the spread of influenza to those at high risk of developing serious complications from the virus. Vaccination coverage has been shown to be significantly greater among employers requiring and encouraging HCP to receive the annual influenza vaccination.ObjectivesTo compare the proportion of respondent hospitals requiring HCP to receive annual influenza vaccination between 2013 and 2017 and to assess the degree to which these proportions differed between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis national survey study included responses from 1062 infection preventionists between 2013 and 2017 from nationally representative samples of all VA and non-VA hospitals in the United States. Data analysis was conducted from November 17, 2017, to March 26, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey response indicating hospital requirement for annual influenza vaccination of HCP.ResultsThe overall response rate for the 2013 survey was 69.3% (non-VA, 70.6% [403 of 571]; VA, 63.5% [80 of 126]) and in 2017 was 59.1% (non-VA, 59.1% [530 of 897]; VA, 58.9% [73 of 124]). Among all responding hospitals, mandatory influenza vaccination requirements for HCP increased from 37.1% in 2013 to 61.4% in 2017 (difference, 24.3%; 95% CI, 18.4%-30.2%; P < .001). This change was driven by non-VA hospitals, as requirement policies increased from 44.3% (171 of 386) in 2013 to 69.4% (365 of 526) in 2017 (difference, 25.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-31.4%; P < .001). Conversely, there was no significant change during this period in the proportion of VA hospitals that required influenza vaccinations for HCP (1.3% [1 of 77] to 4.1% [3 of 73]; difference, 2.8%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 8.0%; P = .29).Conclusions and relevanceDespite a substantial increase in mandates among non-VA hospitals, we found that many non-VA hospitals and nearly all VA hospitals are still not currently mandating influenza vaccinations for HCP. In addition to implementing other well-described strategies to increase vaccination rates, health care organizations should consider mandating influenza vaccinations while appropriately weighing and managing the moral, ethical, and legal implications.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care provider usage of mobile devices is increasing globally; however, there is little understanding of patient perceptions on this behavior in a health care setting.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess patients' attitudes toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department and to identify predictors of these attitudes.MethodsThe study was carried out at the emergency department of a large academic tertiary care medical center in Lebanon. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted by administering a questionnaire to medically stable adult patients who presented to the emergency department with an emergency severity index of 3, 4, or 5 between January 2017 and March 2018. The questionnaire collected relevant patient demographic information and included questions related to their mobile device usage along with those evaluating attitudes for the use of mobile devices by health care providers with respect to six major domains: role in health care, distraction potential, impact on communication, empathy, privacy, and professionalism. The attitude toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department was the main outcome variable. A stepwise logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the outcome variable and the demographic and attitude-related independent variables.ResultsAmong the 438 eligible patients, 338 patients responded to the questionnaire for a response rate of 70.0%. Overall, 313/338 (92.6%) respondents agreed that mobile devices improve health care delivery, whereas 132/338 (39.1%) respondents were opposed to their usage by health care providers in the emergency department (95% CI: 34.0-44.4). The majority (240/338, 71.0%) of patients agreed that mobile devices are a source of distraction to health care providers in the workplace. Females (odds ratio [OR]=1.67, 95% CI: 1.00-2.78) as well as all patients (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.36-4.76) who believed that mobile devices were a source of distraction, reflecting a lack of professionalism (OR=2.77, 95% CI 1.59-4.82) and impacting the provider's ability to relate to the patient (OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.72-4.99), were more likely to agree that mobile devices should not be used in the emergency department.ConclusionsPatients' negative attitude toward mobile device use in the emergency department is largely driven by patient gender (females), patient perception of the distraction potential of the devices, and their negative impact on the health care provider's empathy and professionalism. The findings of this study shed light on the importance of encouraging stakeholders to impose a digital professionalism code of conduct for providers working in acute health care settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting.MethodsWe conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose).ResultsThe study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely.ConclusionsThe BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).