Informing Vaccine Messaging and Community Outreach: Experience in Chicago with a Community-Based Participatory Approach.

IF 2.5 4区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

American Journal of Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1177/08901171241307435

Naseem Parsa, Mark Dworkin, Caesar Thompson, Cornelius Chandler, SangEun Lee, Aram Kang, Diana Ghebenei, Melissa Martin, Nadine Peacock, Jeni Hebert-Beirne, Emily Stiehl

{"title":"Informing Vaccine Messaging and Community Outreach: Experience in Chicago with a Community-Based Participatory Approach.","authors":"Naseem Parsa, Mark Dworkin, Caesar Thompson, Cornelius Chandler, SangEun Lee, Aram Kang, Diana Ghebenei, Melissa Martin, Nadine Peacock, Jeni Hebert-Beirne, Emily Stiehl","doi":"10.1177/08901171241307435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: In response to disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in urban environments, we ascertained whether a community-engaged evaluation could rapidly determine why unvaccinated Chicago residents were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.Approach: The assessment used a mixed-methods approach, grounded in community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles.Setting: Interviews were conducted by community partners between April and May 2022 in Chicago, in-person and via phone.Participants: A purposive sample of Chicagoans (n = 456), who were: (1) adults (≥18 years); (2) living in priority areas in Chicago heavily impacted by COVID-19; (3) who spoke English or Spanish; and (4) had not received the COVID-19 vaccine.Method: A transdisciplinary academic-community team co-developed an assessment tool. Members of Chicago's Community Health Response Corps (CHRC) (N = 115) interviewed participants, using a 46-item survey in Qualtrics. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative software, including Dedoose for coding and SAS for descriptive statistics.Results: Over half of all respondents were not concerned about getting COVID-19. Respondents voiced concerns about side effects (36%), vaccine safety (27%), and trust in governmental institutions, given historical events involving unethical research. Participants also reported other social needs (e.g., food or housing insecurity) that made COVID-19 a lower priority.Conclusion: The collaborative research approach highlighted issues of trust, concerns about side effects and vaccine safety, issues that have informed vaccine messaging.","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":" ","pages":"8901171241307435"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","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/10.1177/08901171241307435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In response to disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in urban environments, we ascertained whether a community-engaged evaluation could rapidly determine why unvaccinated Chicago residents were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Approach: The assessment used a mixed-methods approach, grounded in community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles.

Setting: Interviews were conducted by community partners between April and May 2022 in Chicago, in-person and via phone.

Participants: A purposive sample of Chicagoans (n = 456), who were: (1) adults (≥18 years); (2) living in priority areas in Chicago heavily impacted by COVID-19; (3) who spoke English or Spanish; and (4) had not received the COVID-19 vaccine.

Method: A transdisciplinary academic-community team co-developed an assessment tool. Members of Chicago's Community Health Response Corps (CHRC) (N = 115) interviewed participants, using a 46-item survey in Qualtrics. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative software, including Dedoose for coding and SAS for descriptive statistics.

Results: Over half of all respondents were not concerned about getting COVID-19. Respondents voiced concerns about side effects (36%), vaccine safety (27%), and trust in governmental institutions, given historical events involving unethical research. Participants also reported other social needs (e.g., food or housing insecurity) that made COVID-19 a lower priority.

Conclusion: The collaborative research approach highlighted issues of trust, concerns about side effects and vaccine safety, issues that have informed vaccine messaging.

查看原文本刊更多论文

疫苗信息传递和社区外展：芝加哥社区参与式方法的经验。

目的：针对城市环境中COVID-19疫苗接种的差异，我们确定了社区参与评估是否可以快速确定未接种疫苗的芝加哥居民对接种COVID-19疫苗犹豫不决的原因。方法：评估采用基于社区参与性研究（CBPR）原则的混合方法。背景：2022年4月至5月期间，社区合作伙伴在芝加哥进行了面对面和电话采访。参与者：有目的的芝加哥人样本（n = 456），他们是：(1)成年人（≥18岁）；(2)居住在芝加哥受COVID-19严重影响的优先地区；(3)说英语或西班牙语的；(4)未接种新冠肺炎疫苗。方法：一个跨学科的学术团体团队共同开发了一个评估工具。芝加哥社区卫生反应队（CHRC）的成员（N = 115）采访了参与者，使用了一份46项的质量调查。访谈用定性和定量软件进行分析，包括编码用Dedoose和描述性统计用SAS。结果：超过一半的受访者不担心感染COVID-19。考虑到涉及不道德研究的历史事件，受访者表达了对副作用（36%）、疫苗安全性（27%）和对政府机构的信任的担忧。参与者还报告了其他社会需求（例如，粮食或住房不安全），这些需求使COVID-19的优先级较低。结论：合作研究方法强调了信任问题、对副作用和疫苗安全性的担忧，以及为疫苗信息传递提供信息的问题。

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 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.