孟加拉国卫生专业学员和学生对 COVID-19 疫苗加强剂 (VBD) 接受程度的比较分析

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101785

Debendra Nath Roy , Pritom Mondal , Md Maruf Hossain , Md Shah Azam , Ekramul Islam

{"title":"孟加拉国卫生专业学员和学生对 COVID-19 疫苗加强剂 (VBD) 接受程度的比较分析","authors":"Debendra Nath Roy , Pritom Mondal , Md Maruf Hossain , Md Shah Azam , Ekramul Islam","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite the proven therapeutic potential of bivalent vaccine primer doses against COVID-19, acceptance of vaccine booster doses (VBDs) varies among various subgroups of the global population. This study investigated the acceptance of COVID-19 VBDs among trainees and students of health professions in Bangladesh and compared the potential factors influencing their VBDs decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The questionnaire was deployed in an online-enabled layout and conveniently sent to encounters between June 10, 2023 and September 10, 2023. Data from 501 trainees and 501 students were compared (response rate 80.8 % vs.78.3 %) to explore the study objectives.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The pooled COVID-19 VBDs acceptance rates were 90.2 % (95 % Confidence Interval [CI]:87.6─92.8) vs. 93.2 % (95 % [CI]: 91.2─95.2) between trainees and students. The binary logistic analysis revealed that out of twelve factors “equal safety” (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.476 vs. 6.459), “efficacy” ([aOR]:3.673 vs. 2.913), “repeated immunity” ([aOR]: 1.729 vs. 2.247), and “self-priority” ([aOR]:3.108 vs. 4.645) had a significant positive association (p < <em>0.01</em> and p < <em>0.05</em>) with VBDs acceptance in both groups. There were varied effects on several predictors. Among trainee professionals, \"communication\" and \"booster mandate\" were associated significantly ([aOR]:1.534 and 1.748, respectively; p <em>< 0.05</em>) with VBDs acceptance, whereas \"information source\" and \"culture\" were associated ([aOR]:3.692 and 3.151, respectively; p <em>< 0.05</em>) significantly with VBDs acceptance in the student cohort.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was a satisfactory acceptance level of COVID-19 VBDs among healthcare participants, and several multidimensional factors influenced their VBDs decisions in different ways. For enhancing public booster immunization decisions against COVID-19, individual health expectations must be linked to wider societal influences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":"30 ","pages":"Article 101785"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002823/pdfft?md5=28e6da236c2bd4d0b981452bff3261f0&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002823-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance among trainees and students of health professions in Bangladesh\",\"authors\":\"Debendra Nath Roy , Pritom Mondal , Md Maruf Hossain , Md Shah Azam , Ekramul Islam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite the proven therapeutic potential of bivalent vaccine primer doses against COVID-19, acceptance of vaccine booster doses (VBDs) varies among various subgroups of the global population. This study investigated the acceptance of COVID-19 VBDs among trainees and students of health professions in Bangladesh and compared the potential factors influencing their VBDs decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The questionnaire was deployed in an online-enabled layout and conveniently sent to encounters between June 10, 2023 and September 10, 2023. Data from 501 trainees and 501 students were compared (response rate 80.8 % vs.78.3 %) to explore the study objectives.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The pooled COVID-19 VBDs acceptance rates were 90.2 % (95 % Confidence Interval [CI]:87.6─92.8) vs. 93.2 % (95 % [CI]: 91.2─95.2) between trainees and students. The binary logistic analysis revealed that out of twelve factors “equal safety” (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.476 vs. 6.459), “efficacy” ([aOR]:3.673 vs. 2.913), “repeated immunity” ([aOR]: 1.729 vs. 2.247), and “self-priority” ([aOR]:3.108 vs. 4.645) had a significant positive association (p < <em>0.01</em> and p < <em>0.05</em>) with VBDs acceptance in both groups. There were varied effects on several predictors. Among trainee professionals, \\\"communication\\\" and \\\"booster mandate\\\" were associated significantly ([aOR]:1.534 and 1.748, respectively; p <em>< 0.05</em>) with VBDs acceptance, whereas \\\"information source\\\" and \\\"culture\\\" were associated ([aOR]:3.692 and 3.151, respectively; p <em>< 0.05</em>) significantly with VBDs acceptance in the student cohort.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was a satisfactory acceptance level of COVID-19 VBDs among healthcare participants, and several multidimensional factors influenced their VBDs decisions in different ways. For enhancing public booster immunization decisions against COVID-19, individual health expectations must be linked to wider societal influences.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101785\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002823/pdfft?md5=28e6da236c2bd4d0b981452bff3261f0&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002823-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002823\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

摘要

背景尽管COVID-19二价疫苗底剂的治疗潜力已得到证实，但全球不同人群对疫苗加强剂（VBDs）的接受程度却不尽相同。本研究调查了孟加拉国卫生专业受训人员和学生对 COVID-19 VBDs 的接受程度，并比较了影响他们做出 VBDs 决定的潜在因素。结果学员和学生的 COVID-19 VBDs 接受率分别为 90.2%（95% 置信区间 [CI]：87.6-92.8）和 93.2%（95% [CI]：91.2-95.2）。二元逻辑分析显示，在 12 个因素中，"同等安全性"（调整赔率[aOR]：4.476 vs. 6.459）、"疗效"（[aOR]：3.673 vs. 2.913）、"重复免疫"（[aOR]：1.729 vs. 2.247）和 "自我优先"（[aOR]:3.108 vs. 4.645）与两组的 VBDs 接受度均呈显著正相关（p < 0.01 和 p < 0.05）。几项预测因素的影响各不相同。在接受培训的专业人员中，"沟通 "和 "助推任务 "与 VBDs 的接受度显著相关（[aOR]：分别为 1.534 和 1.748；p <；0.05），而 "信息来源 "和 "文化 "与 VBDs 的接受度相关（[aOR]：分别为 3.692 和 3.结论医护人员对 COVID-19 VBDs 的接受程度令人满意，一些多维因素以不同方式影响了他们的 VBDs 决策。要加强公众对 COVID-19 的加强免疫决策，必须将个人的健康期望与更广泛的社会影响联系起来。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparative analysis of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance among trainees and students of health professions in Bangladesh

Background

Despite the proven therapeutic potential of bivalent vaccine primer doses against COVID-19, acceptance of vaccine booster doses (VBDs) varies among various subgroups of the global population. This study investigated the acceptance of COVID-19 VBDs among trainees and students of health professions in Bangladesh and compared the potential factors influencing their VBDs decisions.

Methods

The questionnaire was deployed in an online-enabled layout and conveniently sent to encounters between June 10, 2023 and September 10, 2023. Data from 501 trainees and 501 students were compared (response rate 80.8 % vs.78.3 %) to explore the study objectives.

Results

The pooled COVID-19 VBDs acceptance rates were 90.2 % (95 % Confidence Interval [CI]:87.6─92.8) vs. 93.2 % (95 % [CI]: 91.2─95.2) between trainees and students. The binary logistic analysis revealed that out of twelve factors “equal safety” (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.476 vs. 6.459), “efficacy” ([aOR]:3.673 vs. 2.913), “repeated immunity” ([aOR]: 1.729 vs. 2.247), and “self-priority” ([aOR]:3.108 vs. 4.645) had a significant positive association (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05) with VBDs acceptance in both groups. There were varied effects on several predictors. Among trainee professionals, "communication" and "booster mandate" were associated significantly ([aOR]:1.534 and 1.748, respectively; p < 0.05) with VBDs acceptance, whereas "information source" and "culture" were associated ([aOR]:3.692 and 3.151, respectively; p < 0.05) significantly with VBDs acceptance in the student cohort.

Conclusions

There was a satisfactory acceptance level of COVID-19 VBDs among healthcare participants, and several multidimensional factors influenced their VBDs decisions in different ways. For enhancing public booster immunization decisions against COVID-19, individual health expectations must be linked to wider societal influences.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

218

审稿时长

66 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.