美国门诊外科护士在新冠肺炎疫苗犹豫和接种中感知易感性、感知严重性、感知障碍和益处的作用:一项定性研究

Dania Matta, P. Herring, W. Beeson, S. Wiafe
{"title":"美国门诊外科护士在新冠肺炎疫苗犹豫和接种中感知易感性、感知严重性、感知障碍和益处的作用:一项定性研究","authors":"Dania Matta, P. Herring, W. Beeson, S. Wiafe","doi":"10.21106/ijtmrph.439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objective: This qualitative study explores outpatient nurses’ perceptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the COVID-19 vaccine, aiming to inform future research and health education strategies for reducing vaccination hesitancy among healthcare workers, particularly nurses. The nurses recruited for this study were all registered nurses (RNs). Studies have shown that registered professional nurses consistently display higher vaccination hesitancy versus other healthcare groups, specifically doctors. Little is known about the vaccine acceptance disparities that exist among healthcare workers, or why nurses appear to consistently display higher rates of vaccine hesitancy, versus other healthcare groups, especially doctors.\nMethods: Semi-structured interviews guided by the health belief model were conducted with 8 outpatient nurses, and a focus group guided by the health belief model was conducted with 5 outpatient nurses, for a total of 13 nurses (N=13). The data were triangulated through interviews, a focus group, and a literature review. In addition, an independent external secondary analyst confirmed the findings.\nResults: Three key themes appeared: (1) sources of information (trusted sources of information), (2) experience (belief about personal risk and personal responsibility), and (3) logistics (COVID-19 testing requirements, booster frequency, and mandate versus choice).\nConclusion and Implications for Translation: We advise public health professionals to adopt a grassroots approach to vaccine hesitancy interventions, engaging and training doctors and nurses. We also recommend consistency in prevention approaches, as that produces trust. We also recommend further research into the booster requirement, as requiring an unknown number of boosters appears to lower trust among nurses.\n \nCopyright © 2023 Matta et al. Published by Global Health and Education Projects, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.","PeriodicalId":93768,"journal":{"name":"International journal of translational medical research and public health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Perceived Susceptibility, Perceived Severity, Perceived Barriers and Benefits in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake Among Outpatient Surgery Nurses in the United States: A Qualitative Study\",\"authors\":\"Dania Matta, P. Herring, W. Beeson, S. Wiafe\",\"doi\":\"10.21106/ijtmrph.439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Objective: This qualitative study explores outpatient nurses’ perceptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the COVID-19 vaccine, aiming to inform future research and health education strategies for reducing vaccination hesitancy among healthcare workers, particularly nurses. The nurses recruited for this study were all registered nurses (RNs). Studies have shown that registered professional nurses consistently display higher vaccination hesitancy versus other healthcare groups, specifically doctors. Little is known about the vaccine acceptance disparities that exist among healthcare workers, or why nurses appear to consistently display higher rates of vaccine hesitancy, versus other healthcare groups, especially doctors.\\nMethods: Semi-structured interviews guided by the health belief model were conducted with 8 outpatient nurses, and a focus group guided by the health belief model was conducted with 5 outpatient nurses, for a total of 13 nurses (N=13). The data were triangulated through interviews, a focus group, and a literature review. In addition, an independent external secondary analyst confirmed the findings.\\nResults: Three key themes appeared: (1) sources of information (trusted sources of information), (2) experience (belief about personal risk and personal responsibility), and (3) logistics (COVID-19 testing requirements, booster frequency, and mandate versus choice).\\nConclusion and Implications for Translation: We advise public health professionals to adopt a grassroots approach to vaccine hesitancy interventions, engaging and training doctors and nurses. We also recommend consistency in prevention approaches, as that produces trust. We also recommend further research into the booster requirement, as requiring an unknown number of boosters appears to lower trust among nurses.\\n \\nCopyright © 2023 Matta et al. Published by Global Health and Education Projects, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of translational medical research and public health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of translational medical research and public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21106/ijtmrph.439\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of translational medical research and public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21106/ijtmrph.439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:这项定性研究探讨了门诊护士对2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)和新冠肺炎疫苗的看法,旨在为未来的研究和健康教育策略提供信息,以减少医护人员,特别是护士对疫苗接种的犹豫。本研究招募的护士均为注册护士。研究表明,与其他医疗保健群体,特别是医生相比,注册专业护士始终表现出更高的疫苗接种犹豫。与其他医疗保健群体,尤其是医生相比,医护人员对疫苗的接受程度存在差异,或者为什么护士似乎一直表现出更高的疫苗犹豫率,人们对此知之甚少。方法:以健康信念模型为指导,对8名门诊护士进行半结构化访谈,以健康信念模式为指导,以5名门诊护士为焦点小组,共13名护士(N=13)。通过访谈、焦点小组和文献综述对数据进行了三角分析。此外,一位独立的外部二级分析师证实了这一发现。结果:出现了三个关键主题:(1)信息来源(可信的信息来源),(2)经验(对个人风险和个人责任的信念),以及(3)后勤(新冠肺炎检测要求、加强频率和任务与选择)。结论和翻译意义:我们建议公共卫生专业人员采取基层方法进行疫苗犹豫干预,让医生和护士参与进来并接受培训。我们还建议在预防方法上保持一致,因为这会产生信任。我们还建议对加强针的要求进行进一步研究,因为需要未知数量的加强针似乎会降低护士的信任度。版权所有©2023 Matta等人,由Global Health and Education Projects,股份有限公司出版。这是一篇根据知识共享署名许可CC by 4.0条款分发的开放获取文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Perceived Susceptibility, Perceived Severity, Perceived Barriers and Benefits in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake Among Outpatient Surgery Nurses in the United States: A Qualitative Study
Background and Objective: This qualitative study explores outpatient nurses’ perceptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the COVID-19 vaccine, aiming to inform future research and health education strategies for reducing vaccination hesitancy among healthcare workers, particularly nurses. The nurses recruited for this study were all registered nurses (RNs). Studies have shown that registered professional nurses consistently display higher vaccination hesitancy versus other healthcare groups, specifically doctors. Little is known about the vaccine acceptance disparities that exist among healthcare workers, or why nurses appear to consistently display higher rates of vaccine hesitancy, versus other healthcare groups, especially doctors. Methods: Semi-structured interviews guided by the health belief model were conducted with 8 outpatient nurses, and a focus group guided by the health belief model was conducted with 5 outpatient nurses, for a total of 13 nurses (N=13). The data were triangulated through interviews, a focus group, and a literature review. In addition, an independent external secondary analyst confirmed the findings. Results: Three key themes appeared: (1) sources of information (trusted sources of information), (2) experience (belief about personal risk and personal responsibility), and (3) logistics (COVID-19 testing requirements, booster frequency, and mandate versus choice). Conclusion and Implications for Translation: We advise public health professionals to adopt a grassroots approach to vaccine hesitancy interventions, engaging and training doctors and nurses. We also recommend consistency in prevention approaches, as that produces trust. We also recommend further research into the booster requirement, as requiring an unknown number of boosters appears to lower trust among nurses.   Copyright © 2023 Matta et al. Published by Global Health and Education Projects, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信