A113 COVID-19 VACCINATIONS IN IBD PATIENTS: PATIENT KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The IBD population has historically suffered from a below average uptake of vaccinations which raises concern for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in this population. Patients report IBD-specific reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy including fear of vaccine-related IBD flare up, a desire for IBD-specific data regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, and worry about current drugs affecting vaccine efficacy. Additionally, IBD patients tend to report greater fear of COVID-19, concern about the impact of their medications on COVID-19 disease, and overall need for COVID-19 information. Aims To explore patients’ education, knowledge, and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination with the aim of lowering COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, improving knowledge of COVID-19 vaccines, and identifying outstanding barriers to COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Methods Study participants are patients diagnosed with IBD recruited from the Adult IBD Clinic at McMaster University Medical Centre between June 2022 and May 2023. Quantitative questionnaires were distributed to participants following receipt of informed consent at routine clinics and were offered in paper format. To describe the study population, the following descriptive statistics were performed: means and standard deviation for continuous variables, distributions (n, %) for dichotomous and categorical variables. Results In total, 236 participants were surveyed. The sample is predominantly female (61%) and most participants are diagnosed with Crohn’s disease (63.9%). The vast majority of patients have received at minimum 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (92.1%). Reported reasons for vaccination included COVID-19 vaccine being available free of cost (52.3%), recommendation from a healthcare professional (51.9%), and feeling as though the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the risks (51.6%). Most patients reported having heard of negative vaccine experiences online (75.8%) including mild (27.6%) and severe (30.8%) adverse reactions. Despite this, participants viewed vaccines as effective (83%), protective towards the individual (75.5%), and safe (68.1%). Healthcare providers were regarded as a very significant influence in terms of COVID-19 vaccine information (65.6%) and were overwhelmingly viewed as a more reliable source than mass media (91.3%). Participants did not perceive an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 related serious illness, or COVID-19 vaccine related adverse effects due to their IBD or IBD treatments. Participants also did not show reluctance to vaccinate due to their IBD or IBD treatments. Conclusions The present study provides insight into the perceptions and knowledge of Canadian IBD patients as it relates to COVID-19 vaccines. Importantly, the results highlight the crucial role of the healthcare provider on vaccination uptake and acceptance. Funding Agencies None
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».