Trusted Sources of Information and COVID-19 Vaccination Among Black Adults in Chicago.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
American Journal of Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1177/08901171241240529
Jana L Hirschtick, Jennifer L Walsh, Wayne DiFranceisco, Jacquelyn Jacobs, Bijou Hunt, Jesus Valencia, Katherine Quinn
{"title":"Trusted Sources of Information and COVID-19 Vaccination Among Black Adults in Chicago.","authors":"Jana L Hirschtick, Jennifer L Walsh, Wayne DiFranceisco, Jacquelyn Jacobs, Bijou Hunt, Jesus Valencia, Katherine Quinn","doi":"10.1177/08901171241240529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Examine trust in sources of COVID-19 information and vaccination status.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Chicago, Illinois.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Convenience sample of 538 Black adults surveyed between September 2021 and March 2022.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Trust in sources of COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccination.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>Using latent class analysis, we identified classes of trust in sources of COVID-19 information. We considered predictors of class membership using multinomial logistic regression and examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between trust class membership and COVID-19 vaccination while accounting for uncertainty in class assignment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analytic sample (n = 522) was predominantly aged 18-34 (52%) and female (71%). Results suggested a four-class solution: (1) low trust, (2) high trust in all sources, (3) high trust in doctor and government, and (4) high trust in doctor, faith leader, and family. Unadjusted odds of vaccination were greater in the high trust in all sources (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.2), high trust in doctor and government (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.3), and high trust in doctor, faith leader, and family classes (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2, 3.9) than the low trust class. However, these associations were not significant after adjustment for sociodemographic and health status factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although COVID-19 vaccination varied across trust classes, our adjusted findings do not suggest a direct association between trust and vaccination, reflecting complexities in the vaccine decision-making process.</p>","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241240529","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Examine trust in sources of COVID-19 information and vaccination status.

Design: Cross-sectional.

Setting: Chicago, Illinois.

Subjects: Convenience sample of 538 Black adults surveyed between September 2021 and March 2022.

Measures: Trust in sources of COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccination.

Analysis: Using latent class analysis, we identified classes of trust in sources of COVID-19 information. We considered predictors of class membership using multinomial logistic regression and examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between trust class membership and COVID-19 vaccination while accounting for uncertainty in class assignment.

Results: Our analytic sample (n = 522) was predominantly aged 18-34 (52%) and female (71%). Results suggested a four-class solution: (1) low trust, (2) high trust in all sources, (3) high trust in doctor and government, and (4) high trust in doctor, faith leader, and family. Unadjusted odds of vaccination were greater in the high trust in all sources (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.2), high trust in doctor and government (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.3), and high trust in doctor, faith leader, and family classes (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2, 3.9) than the low trust class. However, these associations were not significant after adjustment for sociodemographic and health status factors.

Conclusion: Although COVID-19 vaccination varied across trust classes, our adjusted findings do not suggest a direct association between trust and vaccination, reflecting complexities in the vaccine decision-making process.

芝加哥黑人成年人中可信赖的信息来源和 COVID-19 疫苗接种情况。
目的:调查对 COVID-19 信息来源的信任度和疫苗接种情况:设计:横断面:受试者:伊利诺伊州芝加哥市在 2021 年 9 月至 2022 年 3 月期间对 538 名黑人成年人进行了方便抽样调查:测量指标:对 COVID-19 信息来源的信任度、COVID-19 疫苗接种情况:通过潜类分析,我们确定了对 COVID-19 信息来源信任度的类别。我们使用多项式逻辑回归法考虑了类别成员资格的预测因素,并在考虑类别分配不确定性的情况下,研究了信任类别成员资格与 COVID-19 疫苗接种之间的未调整和调整关联:我们的分析样本(n = 522)主要为 18-34 岁(52%)和女性(71%)。结果表明存在四类解决方案:(1) 低信任度;(2) 对所有来源的高信任度;(3) 对医生和政府的高信任度;(4) 对医生、信仰领袖和家人的高信任度。与低信任度人群相比,对所有来源高度信任(OR 2.0,95% CI 1.2-3.2)、对医生和政府高度信任(OR 2.7,95% CI 1.4-5.3)以及对医生、信仰领袖和家庭高度信任(OR 2.1,95% CI 1.2-3.9)的人群接种疫苗的几率更大。然而,在对社会人口和健康状况因素进行调整后,这些关联并不显著:尽管COVID-19疫苗接种在不同信任度等级之间存在差异,但我们的调整结果并不表明信任度与疫苗接种之间存在直接联系,这反映了疫苗决策过程的复杂性。
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
American Journal of Health Promotion
American Journal of Health Promotion PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The editorial goal of the American Journal of Health Promotion is to provide a forum for exchange among the many disciplines involved in health promotion and an interface between researchers and practitioners.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信