初级保健就诊类型与COVID-19疫苗犹豫:一项回顾性队列研究

IF 5.2
Orit Cohen Castel, Cheryl Zlotnick
{"title":"初级保健就诊类型与COVID-19疫苗犹豫:一项回顾性队列研究","authors":"Orit Cohen Castel, Cheryl Zlotnick","doi":"10.3399/bjgp25X742341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic changed the nature of primary care visits, from face-to-face to an increasing prevalence of online or telephone visits, but little is known about the association between types of primary care visits and vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the association between primary care visit type and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A retrospective cohort study for the period of 9.2019 to 9.2022 was conducted using randomly selected medical records from a large HMO on adults with at least one visit with the primary care physician between 1.12.2019 to 30.11.2020 (the exposure period).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Logistic regression models were used to test the association between primary care visit type and full COVID-19 vaccination status after adjusting for socio-demographic, clinical, and health behaviour characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the final cohort (<i>n</i> = 173 779), 126 204 (72.6%) were fully vaccinated. Logistic regression model findings indicated that male adults who used online asynchronous visits, lived in a city, had hypertension and/or diabetes, and received seasonal influenza vaccine were more likely to obtain full vaccination. Less likely to obtain full vaccination were adults who used telephone visits, had high numbers of face-to-face visits, had low socioeconomic status and were ≥60 years old (<i>P</i><0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary care visit type during the COVID-19 pre-vaccination period predicts vaccine hesitancy. Physicians' awareness of patients who avoid using newer forms of technology-based visits, may allow the provision of targeted interventions to improve health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":520790,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","volume":"75 suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Types of primary care visits and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Orit Cohen Castel, Cheryl Zlotnick\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/bjgp25X742341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic changed the nature of primary care visits, from face-to-face to an increasing prevalence of online or telephone visits, but little is known about the association between types of primary care visits and vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the association between primary care visit type and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A retrospective cohort study for the period of 9.2019 to 9.2022 was conducted using randomly selected medical records from a large HMO on adults with at least one visit with the primary care physician between 1.12.2019 to 30.11.2020 (the exposure period).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Logistic regression models were used to test the association between primary care visit type and full COVID-19 vaccination status after adjusting for socio-demographic, clinical, and health behaviour characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the final cohort (<i>n</i> = 173 779), 126 204 (72.6%) were fully vaccinated. Logistic regression model findings indicated that male adults who used online asynchronous visits, lived in a city, had hypertension and/or diabetes, and received seasonal influenza vaccine were more likely to obtain full vaccination. Less likely to obtain full vaccination were adults who used telephone visits, had high numbers of face-to-face visits, had low socioeconomic status and were ≥60 years old (<i>P</i><0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary care visit type during the COVID-19 pre-vaccination period predicts vaccine hesitancy. Physicians' awareness of patients who avoid using newer forms of technology-based visits, may allow the provision of targeted interventions to improve health outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners\",\"volume\":\"75 suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp25X742341\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp25X742341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行改变了初级保健就诊的性质,从面对面就诊变为越来越普遍的在线或电话就诊,但人们对初级保健就诊类型与疫苗犹豫之间的关系知之甚少。目的:探讨基层就诊类型与COVID-19疫苗犹豫的关系。设计和环境:2019年9月9日至2022年9月9日进行回顾性队列研究,使用随机选择的大型HMO的医疗记录,研究对象是在2019年12月1日至2020年11月30日(暴露期)期间至少与初级保健医生有过一次就诊的成年人。方法:在调整社会人口统计学、临床和健康行为特征后,采用Logistic回归模型检验初级保健就诊类型与COVID-19疫苗接种状况之间的关系。结果:在最后的队列中(n = 173779), 12244(72.6%)完全接种了疫苗。Logistic回归模型结果表明,使用在线异步访问、居住在城市、患有高血压和/或糖尿病并接种季节性流感疫苗的男性成年人更有可能获得全面疫苗接种。使用电话就诊、面对面就诊次数多、社会经济地位低且年龄≥60岁的成年人获得全面疫苗接种的可能性较小(结论:COVID-19疫苗接种前初级保健就诊类型预测疫苗犹豫)。医生意识到患者避免使用新形式的基于技术的就诊,可能允许提供有针对性的干预措施,以改善健康结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Types of primary care visits and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the nature of primary care visits, from face-to-face to an increasing prevalence of online or telephone visits, but little is known about the association between types of primary care visits and vaccine hesitancy.

Aim: To examine the association between primary care visit type and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study for the period of 9.2019 to 9.2022 was conducted using randomly selected medical records from a large HMO on adults with at least one visit with the primary care physician between 1.12.2019 to 30.11.2020 (the exposure period).

Method: Logistic regression models were used to test the association between primary care visit type and full COVID-19 vaccination status after adjusting for socio-demographic, clinical, and health behaviour characteristics.

Results: Of the final cohort (n = 173 779), 126 204 (72.6%) were fully vaccinated. Logistic regression model findings indicated that male adults who used online asynchronous visits, lived in a city, had hypertension and/or diabetes, and received seasonal influenza vaccine were more likely to obtain full vaccination. Less likely to obtain full vaccination were adults who used telephone visits, had high numbers of face-to-face visits, had low socioeconomic status and were ≥60 years old (P<0.001 for all).

Conclusion: Primary care visit type during the COVID-19 pre-vaccination period predicts vaccine hesitancy. Physicians' awareness of patients who avoid using newer forms of technology-based visits, may allow the provision of targeted interventions to improve health outcomes.

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
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