<scp>COVID</scp>‐19 vaccine hesitancy among African American hemodialysis patients: A single‐center experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Presently, much of the American population remains reluctant to the voluntary receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine, despite numerous public health initiatives. Vaccines function as preventive life-saving measures and have been shown to reduce the incidences of disability and death globally.1 Achieving a high vaccination rate is crucial to successfully reach herd immunity. Notably, about a third of African Americans remain hesitant to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.2 African Americans have also been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in regard to hospitalizations and death. Scant amounts of literature illustrate the pattern of willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among dialysis patients. This study was done to assess vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among patients at an urban dialysis center, which serves a predominately African American patient population. Our study consisted of a paper-based survey that was administered to all patients receiving dialysis treatment. Participants were asked whether they were willing to be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, and if they responded no, further follow-up questions related to contextual, individual/group, and vaccine-specific issues were asked. Additional information collected included whether the patient had received an influenza vaccine this year, whether they knew of someone who had COVID-19, and whether they had discussed COVID-19 vaccine with a healthcare provider. A chi-square analysis was performed on these three responses and possible association with a willingness to receive a COVID vaccine. A total of 90 patients responded, of which 54 (60%) were male, 75 (83%) identified as African American, and 15 (17%) identified as Hispanic/Latinx. Nearly half of patients (49%) indicated that they would be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% were unwilling to receive the vaccine, and 17% were unsure. Initially, we hypothesized that having a prior personal history of COVID-19 would be associated with accepting the vaccine; however, only the receipt of an influenza vaccine was associated with a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, p < 0.001. The reduced concerns about the necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine given recent memory of the morbidity and mortality of the disease is concerning. This showed the need for clarification regarding the driving factors behind the hesitancy. Furthermore, the association between receipt of the influenza vaccine and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine emphasizes familiar problems. In the United States, influenza vaccine is covered by many health plans, however, patients still denied influenza vaccines due to either misinformation, misconception, or lack of trust3 and this most likely led them to make the same decision when considering a COVID-19 vaccine. This issue is prominent among ethnic minority patients. Danziger reported the facilities with higher proportion of African American patients had significantly lower influenza vaccine acceptance.4 A recent rapid national assessment for COVID-19 vaccination showed the likelihood of participants getting the vaccine was more than 75%. However, there was a large proportion of hesitancy among African Americans and Hispanics.2 Our findings showed only half of the respondents agreed to receive the vaccine. This disparity is not new and could be explained based on factors that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic including preexisting vaccine hesitancy, lower access and interaction with healthcare providers, lower participation of minorities in clinical trials, and cost-related concerns.5 To address these persistent health disparities, healthcare providers caring for minority patients must collaborate with the partners trusted by the patients to establish trust and identify the best alternatives to enhance the quality of care among the affected population. These findings could help providers to more effectively target messaging around COVID-19 vaccination programs. As shown in Table 1, a lack of trust and not having adequate information regarding safety and efficacy contribute greatly to the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Arguably, trust is an intrinsic and potentially modifiable component of successful uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine. Findings from Hovland showed that trust in the authority is strongly associated with vaccine acceptance.6 Similar to our findings, trusting issues with the authority should be clarified and made a priority to decrease the hesitancy. One study showed an endorsement by Dr. Fauci increased uptake and confidence in safety.7 This strategy can be utilized by frontline healthcare personals working closely with dialysis patients. As stated by Schaffer, all individuals who interact with patients should be confident about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.8 This is critical for presenting a unified message of strong vaccination support from the medical community. In conclusion, the uptake rate of COVID-19 vaccine among minority hemodialysis patients was suboptimal. Patient education to combat the misinformation is essential to increase vaccination uptake. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among dialysis patients and highlights the need for directed education focusing on the safety and efficacy to promote uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. The authors would like to thank all patients for completing the survey. The authors also would like to thank Ms. Lenie Villanueva and all dialysis staff for coordinating the survey. All the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».