P63 Parents report that healthcare professionals play an influential role in deciding whether to vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a patient-led survey in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction/Background Vaccination of children and young people (CYP) with rheumatic and auto-inflammatory diseases is reported to be lower than amongst healthy peers. Whilst vaccination to confer protection against COVID-19 is now underway amongst adults and adolescents, vaccination of CYP under 16 years was not available at the time of this study. This study sought to understand the views of parents/carers regarding vaccination against COVID-19 for CYP with rheumatic and autoinflammatory diseases. Description/Method An online survey was developed and shared via social media and direct contacts, targeted at parents of children with rheumatic and autoinflammatory conditions in Canada. Fieldwork took place during May 2021. Consent was provided during enrolment. Discussion/Results A total of 157 responses were received (78% female, median age 12). The primary diagnosis for the majority was Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA; 39% polyarticular, 15% oligoarticular, 8% enthesitis-related JIA, 6% psoriatic, and 9% systemic). At the time of completing the survey, the majority of CYP had received no vaccination against COVID-19 (83%), although 17% had received one dose; none had received both doses. The majority of parents/carers (55%) would agree for their child to be vaccinated to prevent COVID-19 if the vaccine was approved and available at no cost, with only 10% saying they would not agree, and 18% unsure. Overall, 40% would allow their child to have the vaccine as soon as it was available, with a further 22% who would prefer to wait, and 10% who will allow their child to have the vaccine only when required to. Reasons given by parents choosing not to vaccinate their child against COVID-19 focussed on perceived safety, apparent lack of testing, and alleged potential damage caused by vaccines. In addition, some respondents advised that they had seen anti-vaccine videos on social media targeted at young people, but would still have their child vaccinated when it was available. The majority (92%) cited their doctor or health professionals would be a key source of information when deciding whether to vaccinate their child; however, this varied significantly (p=.0017, chisquare) based on whether they currently would agree to have their child vaccinated, with only 69% of parents who would not vaccinate their child saying their healthcare professional would influence their decision. Around 38% of parents would be influenced by information from their patient organisation. Parents who indicated they would not be vaccinated themselves were less likely to agree for their child to be vaccinated (p<.001, chi-square). Key learning points/Conclusion Healthcare professionals play a vital role in supporting, advising and influencing parental decision-making with regards to COVID-19 vaccination amongst CYP with rheumatic and autoinflammatory conditions, particularly amongst parents/carers who are currently undecided. Working collaboratively with patient organisations to deliver simple, clear advice may help reduce vaccine hesitancy.
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 | 0,005 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».