COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy in Long-Term Care Facilities, Houston, Texas

Abisola M. Oladimeji, A. Afe, T. Olumuyiwa, Charlene Evans Offiong, Ifrah Chaudhary, Bakbergen Turibekov, O. Aikulola, Courtney Persse, Jahana Deadmon, Kristine Hansen, Vijisha Vijayan, Wanda Mora, Jacob Farris, Krystal-Lynn Dean, Kristine Short
{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy in Long-Term Care Facilities, Houston, Texas","authors":"Abisola M. Oladimeji, A. Afe, T. Olumuyiwa, Charlene Evans Offiong, Ifrah Chaudhary, Bakbergen Turibekov, O. Aikulola, Courtney Persse, Jahana Deadmon, Kristine Hansen, Vijisha Vijayan, Wanda Mora, Jacob Farris, Krystal-Lynn Dean, Kristine Short","doi":"10.59273/ajfe.v1i1.7445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nVaccine hesitancy threatens a reversal of progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. The Houston, Texas, Health Department assessed COVID-19 vaccine availability and uptake in these facilities after the emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines in United States.\nPopulation and Methods \nA facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire to elicit data on facility demographics, vaccine availability, residents and staff vaccine uptake at time of assessment. The unit of inquiry was the facility. We calculated frequencies and assessed association with facility type. Facilities were classified as: small-scale facilities (SSF) ≤ 10 beds, medium scale (MSF) 11-50 beds, and large-scale (LSF) > 50 beds.\nResults \nA total of 118 facilities were enrolled, with 2,431 residents and 2,290 staff. Twenty-five (14.5%) of the facilities were LSF, 47 (39.8%) MSF, and 46 (39.0%) SSF. Overall, 70 (59.3%) facilities had COVID-19 vaccine available. The staff of these facilities were four-times as likely as the patients to be unvaccinated (prevalence ratio= 4.1; 95% CI= 3.7, 4.6) since the vast majority of residents, (86.5%), were vaccinated but less than half of staff (44.2%) were (P < 0.0001). Reasons provided for vaccine hesitancy included fear of side effects from a new vaccine, need to wait and see what happens to others, government distrust, religious beliefs, conspiracy theories among other things.   \nDiscussion\nThe findings supported highlighted a preventable gap in the protection of the elderly in these facilities and prompted a health education campaign tackling vaccine hesitancy and encourage vaccine uptake.","PeriodicalId":166522,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Field Epidemiology","volume":"2016 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Field Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59273/ajfe.v1i1.7445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Vaccine hesitancy threatens a reversal of progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. The Houston, Texas, Health Department assessed COVID-19 vaccine availability and uptake in these facilities after the emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines in United States. Population and Methods A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire to elicit data on facility demographics, vaccine availability, residents and staff vaccine uptake at time of assessment. The unit of inquiry was the facility. We calculated frequencies and assessed association with facility type. Facilities were classified as: small-scale facilities (SSF) ≤ 10 beds, medium scale (MSF) 11-50 beds, and large-scale (LSF) > 50 beds. Results A total of 118 facilities were enrolled, with 2,431 residents and 2,290 staff. Twenty-five (14.5%) of the facilities were LSF, 47 (39.8%) MSF, and 46 (39.0%) SSF. Overall, 70 (59.3%) facilities had COVID-19 vaccine available. The staff of these facilities were four-times as likely as the patients to be unvaccinated (prevalence ratio= 4.1; 95% CI= 3.7, 4.6) since the vast majority of residents, (86.5%), were vaccinated but less than half of staff (44.2%) were (P < 0.0001). Reasons provided for vaccine hesitancy included fear of side effects from a new vaccine, need to wait and see what happens to others, government distrust, religious beliefs, conspiracy theories among other things.    Discussion The findings supported highlighted a preventable gap in the protection of the elderly in these facilities and prompted a health education campaign tackling vaccine hesitancy and encourage vaccine uptake.
德克萨斯州休斯顿长期护理机构的COVID-19疫苗覆盖率和犹豫不决
疫苗方面的犹豫有可能使在应对疫苗可预防疾病方面取得的进展发生逆转。在美国紧急使用COVID-19疫苗后,德克萨斯州休斯顿卫生部评估了这些设施的COVID-19疫苗的可用性和使用情况。人口和方法采用结构化访谈问卷进行了一项基于设施的横断面研究,以获取评估时设施人口统计、疫苗供应、居民和工作人员疫苗接种情况的数据。调查单位是设施。我们计算了频率并评估了与设施类型的关联。设施分为:小型设施(SSF)≤10张床位,中型设施(MSF) 11-50张床位,大型设施(LSF) 50张床位。结果共纳入118家医院,住院医师2431人,工作人员2290人。其中25家(14.5%)是社会稳定组织,47家(39.8%)是无国界医生,46家(39.0%)是社会稳定组织。总体而言,70个(59.3%)设施提供COVID-19疫苗。这些设施的工作人员未接种疫苗的可能性是患者的四倍(患病率= 4.1;95% CI= 3.7, 4.6),因为绝大多数居民(86.5%)接种了疫苗,但不到一半的工作人员(44.2%)接种了疫苗(P < 0.0001)。对疫苗犹豫不决的原因包括担心新疫苗的副作用,需要等待,看看其他人会发生什么,政府不信任,宗教信仰,阴谋论等等。讨论支持的研究结果强调了在这些设施中保护老年人方面存在可预防的差距,并促使开展健康教育运动,解决疫苗犹豫问题并鼓励接种疫苗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信