Dataset Information

Factors associated with early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and adherence to second dose in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to determine factors independently associated with early COVID-19 vaccination and adherence to two-dose regimens.

Methods

Among persons receiving care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system (n = 5,766,638), we identified those who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination through the VA, during the first ~3months following emergency use authorization, from December 11, 2020 to March 9, 2021 (n = 1,569,099, or 27.2%, including 880,200 (56.1%) Moderna, 676,279 (43.1%) Pfizer-BioNTech and 12,620 (0.8%) Janssen vaccines).

Results

Follow-up for receipt of vaccination began on December 11, 2020. After adjustment for baseline characteristics ascertained as of December 11, 2020, factors significantly associated with vaccination included older age, higher comorbidity burden, higher body mass index category, Black (vs. White) race (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.19-1.20), Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic) ethnicity (AHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.11-1.13), urban (vs. rural) residence (AHR 1.31, 95% CI 1.31-1.31), and geographical region, while AI/AN race (vs. White), was associated with lower vaccination rate (AHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.87). Among persons who received both doses of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, 95.3% received the second dose within ±4 days of the recommended date. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose, only 3.2% did not receive the second dose within 42 days for Pfizer versus 4.0% for Moderna (p<0.001). Factors independently associated with higher likelihood of missing the second dose included younger age (10.83% in 18-50 yo vs. 2.72% in 70-75 yo), AI/AN race, female sex, rural location, geographical region and prior positive test for SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusions

We identified sociodemographic and clinical factors that may be used to target vaccination efforts and to further improve adherence to second vaccine dosing.

SUBMITTER: Ioannou GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers (PCPs) vary in skills to effectively treat depression. Key features of evidence-based collaborative care models (CCMs) include the availability of depression care managers (DCMs) and mental health specialists (MHSs) in primary care. Little is known, however, about the relationships between PCP characteristics, CCM features, and PCP depression care.ObjectiveTo assess relationships between various CCM features, PCP characteristics, and PCP depression management.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a provider survey.Participants180 PCPs in eight VA sites nationwide.Main measuresIndependent variables included scales measuring comfort and difficulty with depression care; collaboration with a MHS; self-reported depression caseload; availability of a collocated MHS, and co-management with a DCM or MHS. Covariates included provider type and gender. For outcomes, we assessed PCP self-reported performance of key depression management behaviors in primary care in the past 6 months.Key resultsResponse rate was 52 % overall, with 47 % attending physicians, 34 % residents, and 19 % nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Half (52 %) reported greater than eight veterans with depression in their panels and a MHS collocated in primary care (50 %). Seven of the eight clinics had a DCM. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors for PCP depression management included comfort, difficulty, co-management with MHSs and numbers of veterans with depression in their panels.ConclusionsPCPs who felt greater ease and comfort in managing depression, co-managed with MHSs, and reported higher depression caseloads, were more likely to report performing depression management behaviors. Neither a collocated MHS, collaborating with a MHS, nor co-managing with a DCM independently predicted PCP depression management. Because the success of collaborative care for depression depends on the ability and willingness of PCPs to engage in managing depression themselves, along with other providers, more research is necessary to understand how to engage PCPs in depression management.

Project description:BackgroundWomen veterans who use the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System theoretically have access to the full range of contraceptive methods. This study explores match between currently used and self-reported "ideal" methods as a potential marker of contraceptive access and preference matching.MethodsThis mixed methods study uses data from a nationally representative survey of reproductive-aged women veterans who use the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System for primary care, including 979 participants at risk of unintended pregnancy. Women reported all contraceptive methods used in the past month and were asked, "If you could choose any method of contraception or birth control to prevent pregnancy, what would be your ideal choice?" and selected a single "ideal" method. If applicable, participants were additionally asked, "Why aren't you currently using this method of contraception?" We used adjusted logistic regression to identify patient-, provider-, and system-level factors associated with ideal-current method match. We qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses about reasons for ideal method nonuse.ResultsOverall, 58% were currently using their ideal method; match was greatest among women selecting an IUD as ideal (73%). Non-White race/ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89) and mental illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.92) were negatively associated with ideal-current match in adjusted analyses; the presence of a gynecologist at the primary care site was associated with an increased odds of match (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.75). Modifiable barriers to ideal method use were cited by 23% of women, including access issues, cost concerns, and provider-level barriers; 79% of responses included nonmodifiable reasons for mismatch including relationship factors and pregnancy plans incongruent with ideal method use, suggesting limitations of our measure based on differential interpretation of the word "ideal."ConclusionsMany women veterans are not currently using the contraceptive method they consider ideal. Results emphasize the complexity of contraceptive method selection and of measuring contraceptive preference matching.