Dataset Information

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Vaccine Receipt by Health Care Personnel at a Major Academic Hospital During the First Months of Vaccine Availability.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Several COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized in the US, yet preliminary evidence suggests high levels of vaccine hesitancy and wide racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in uptake.

Objective

To assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care personnel (HCP) during the first 4 months of availability in a large academic hospital, compare acceptance with previously measured vaccine hesitancy, and describe racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in vaccine uptake.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study included 12 610 HCP who were offered COVID-19 vaccination at a major academic hospital in Philadelphia between December 16, 2020, and April 16, 2021.

Exposures

For each HCP, data were collected on occupational category, age, sex, race and ethnicity (Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American [Black], Hispanic, White, and multiracial), and social vulnerability index (SVI) at the zip code of residence.

Main outcomes and measures

Vaccine uptake by HCP at the employee vaccination clinic.

Results

The study population included 4173 men (34.8%) and 7814 women (65.2%) (623 without data). A total of 1480 were Asian or Pacific Islander (12.4%); 2563 (21.6%), Black; 452 (3.8%), Hispanic; 7086 (59.6%), White; and 192 (1.6%), multiracial; 717 had no data for race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 40.9 (12.4) years, and 9573 (76.0%) received at least 1 vaccine dose during the first 4 months of vaccine availability. Adjusted for age, sex, job position, and SVI, Black (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and multiracial (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89) HCP were less likely to receive vaccine compared with White HCP. When stratified by job position, Black nurses (n = 189; 62.8%), Black HCP with some patient contact (n = 466; 49.9%), and Black HCP with no patient contact (n = 636; 56.3%) all had lower vaccine uptake compared with their White and Asian or Pacific Islander counterparts. Similarly, multiracial HCP with some (n = 26; 52.0%) or no (n = 48; 58.5%) patient contact had lower vaccine uptake. In contrast, Black physicians were just as likely to receive the vaccine as physicians of other racial and ethnic groups.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, more than two-thirds of HCP at a large academic hospital in Philadelphia received a COVID-19 vaccine within 4 months of vaccine availability. Although racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities were seen in vaccine uptake, no such disparities were found among physicians. Better understanding of factors driving these disparities may help improve uptake.

SUBMITTER: Green-McKenzie J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTimely and efficient access to hospital care is essential for the health and well-being of children. As insurance networks, accountable care organizations, and alternative payment methods evolve, these new systems of care must continue to serve the needs of children.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that the availability of definitive pediatric hospital care is significantly more limited than adult care and is decreasing disproportionately.DesignThis study used case mix data during fiscal years 2004 through 2014 to measure transfer frequency and identify the site of care completion for all patients seen in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts. Patterns of care among children were then compared with patterns of care among adults. Participants were all patients seen in an emergency department or admitted to a hospital from 2004 through 2014, including more than 34 million encounters.Main outcomes and measuresHospital Capability Index and Regionalization Index for all acute care hospitals and all conditions within the Clinical Classifications Software of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.ResultsOver the study period, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hospital system was composed of 66 acute care hospitals. After excluding newborns and mental health conditions, there were 34 511 312 encounters, with 25 226 014 emergency department visits and 9 285 298 observation or full admissions. From 2004 through 2014, care for adults and children concentrated among hospitals but much more so for pediatric care. The number of children requiring care in more than one hospital increased 36.2% (from 7190 to 9793). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) Hospital Capability Index, reflecting the likelihood of a hospital completing a patient's care without transfer, decreased 10.8% (from 0.74 [IQR, 0.65-0.81] to 0.66 [IQR, 0.53-0.76]) for adult care and 65.0% (0.20 [IQR, 0.05-0.34] to 0.07 [IQR, 0.01-0.23]) for pediatric care. Almost all of the shift was from nonacademic to academic hospitals. The median Regionalization Index, reflecting the degree to which care for specific conditions is regionalized, was very high for pediatric conditions and further increased from 0.79 (IQR, 0.67-0.91) to 0.87 (IQR, 0.80-0.91). Over the same decade, the mean Regionalization Index for adult conditions was low and increased modestly from 0.25 (IQR, 0.14-0.39) to 0.32 (IQR, 0.19-0.46). Among pediatric conditions, more than 75% were highly regionalized in 2014 compared with fewer than 50% in 2004.Conclusions and relevancePediatric hospital care has become increasingly concentrated, and many children with common conditions are now less frequently treated in the community. This finding has significant implications for systemwide capacity management and should be specifically accounted for in public health activities, disaster planning, and determinations of network adequacy.

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.).

Project description:BackgroundThe use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center.MethodsA validated questionnaire was completed by anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists. It consisted of questions that required demographic information and assessed awareness about radiation hazards. In addition, 15 multiple-choice questions assessed knowledge about radiation across the following domains: the main principle of radiation protection, personal annual radiation dose, personal protection equipment, safe distance from an X-ray machine, and susceptible organs.ResultsA total of 270 potential participants were emailed and invited to respond to an online questionnaire, and the response rate was 79.3%. Of the 214 participants, 69.2% were women; the mean age of the sample was 34.8 years. Most of the participants (63.1%) considered radiation exposure that occurs as a part of daily work to be very harmful; 86.4% and 78.5% reported that they always wore a lead apron and a thyroid shield when working in an environment that entails radiation exposure, respectively. The mean score for knowledge about radiation hazards and protection was 6.4 ± 2.0 (maximum possible score = 15) Therefore, there is a need to improve anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists' knowledge about radiation protection, especially with regard to the use of lead goggles and harmful doses of radiation.ConclusionThe present findings suggest that there is a reasonable level of awareness but a relative lack of knowledge about radiation hazards and protection among anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists. Therefore, continuing medical education on radiation hazards and protection must be mandated.

Project description:ImportanceSome parents are concerned that multiple vaccines in early childhood could weaken their child's immune system. Biological data suggest that increased vaccine antigen exposure could increase the risk for infections not targeted by vaccines.ObjectiveTo examine estimated cumulative vaccine antigen exposure through the first 23 months of life in children with and without non-vaccine-targeted infections from 24 through 47 months of age.Design, setting, and participantsA nested case-control study was conducted in 6 US health care organizations participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Cases were identified by International Classification of Diseases codes for infectious diseases in the emergency department and inpatient medical settings and then validated by medical record review. Cases of non-vaccine-targeted infection were matched to controls by age, sex, health care organization site, and chronic disease status. Participants were children ages 24 through 47 months, born between January 1, 2003, and September 31, 2013, followed up until December 31, 2015.ExposuresCumulative vaccine antigen exposure, estimated by summing the number of antigens in each vaccine dose received from birth through age 23 months.Main outcomes and measuresNon-vaccine-targeted infections, including upper and lower respiratory infections and gastrointestinal infections, from 24 through 47 months of age, and the association between these infections and estimated cumulative vaccine exposure from birth through 23 months. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate matched odds ratios representing the odds of non-vaccine-targeted infections for every 30-unit increase in estimated cumulative number of antigens received.ResultsAmong the 944 patients (193 cases and 751 controls), the mean (SD) age was 32.5 (6.3) months, 422 (45%) were female, and 61 (7%) had a complex chronic condition. Through the first 23 months, the estimated mean (SD) cumulative vaccine antigen exposure was 240.6 (48.3) for cases and 242.9 (51.1) for controls. The between-group difference for estimated cumulative antigen exposure was -2.3 (95% CI, -10.1 to 5.4; P = .55). Among children with vs without non-vaccine-targeted infections from 24 through 47 months of age, the matched odds ratio for estimated cumulative antigen exposure through age 23 months was not significant (matched odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.07).Conclusions and relevanceAmong children from 24 through 47 months of age with emergency department and inpatient visits for infectious diseases not targeted by vaccines, compared with children without such visits, there was no significant difference in estimated cumulative vaccine antigen exposure through the first 23 months of life.

Project description:ImportanceThere is substantial institutional variability in the intensity of end-of-life care that is not explained by patient preferences. Hospital culture and institutional structures (eg, policies, practices, protocols, resources) might contribute to potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments near the end of life.ObjectiveTo understand the role of hospital culture in the everyday dynamics of high-intensity end-of-life care.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative ethnographic study was conducted at 3 academic hospitals in California and Washington that differed in end-of-life care intensity based on measures in the Dartmouth Atlas and included hospital-based clinicians, administrators, and leaders. Data were deductively and inductively analyzed using thematic analysis through an iterative coding process.Main outcome and measureInstitution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources and their role in the everyday dynamics of potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.ResultsA total of 113 semistructured, in-depth interviews (66 women [58.4%]; 23 [20.4%] Asian, 1 [0.9%] Black, 5 [4.4%] Hispanic, 7 [6.2%] multiracial, and 70 [61.9%] White individuals) were conducted with inpatient-based clinicians and administrators between December 2018 and June 2022. Respondents at all hospitals described default tendencies to provide high-intensity treatments that they believed were universal in US hospitals. They also reported that proactive, concerted efforts among multiple care teams were required to deescalate high-intensity treatments. Efforts to deescalate were vulnerable to being undermined at multiple points during a patient's care trajectory by any individual or entity. Respondents described institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources that engendered broadly held understandings of the importance of deescalating nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments. Respondents at different hospitals reported different policies and practices that encouraged or discouraged deescalation. They described how these institutional structures contributed to the culture and everyday dynamics of end-of-life care at their institution.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, clinicians, administrators, and leaders at the hospitals studied reported that they work in a hospital culture in which high-intensity end-of-life care constitutes a default trajectory. Institutional structures and hospital cultures shape the everyday dynamics by which clinicians may deescalate end-of-life patients from this trajectory. Individual behaviors or interactions may fail to mitigate potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments if extant hospital culture or a lack of supportive policies and practices undermine individual efforts. Hospital cultures need to be considered when developing policies and interventions to decrease potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.