Sex differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence in people living with HIV in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: ), we reported that the overall COVID-19 vaccination uptake rate in PLWH was similar by sex. Here, we examined attitudes and beliefs towards vaccination against COVID-19 based on sex. Methods: Between February and May 2022, PLWH across Canada were recruited via social media and community-based organizations to complete an online survey consisting of a modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) questionnaire with items from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Acceptability Matrix. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and responses to the VHS questionnaire by sex. The effect of biological sex on total VHS score, two subscales ("lack of confidence" and "perceived risk") was assessed separately by linear regression adjusting for other key baseline variables. Results: Of 259 PLWH, 69 (27 %) were females and 189 (73 %) were males. Sixty-six (26 %) of participants self-identified as a woman, 163(63 %) as a man and 28(11 %) as trans/two-spirited/queer/non-binary/agender/other. The mean age (SD) was 47 ± 14 years. Females were less likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccination was: important for his/her own health (71 % vs. 86 %); a good way to protect themselves from infection (68 % vs. 86 %); that getting the COVID-19 vaccine was important for the health of others in his/her community (78 % vs. 91 %); believed recommendations by their doctor/health care provider about COVID-19 vaccines (78 % vs. 88 %); that information about COVID-19 vaccines from public health officials was reliable and trustworthy (56 % vs. 75 % vs); COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 infections (61 % vs. 82 %) and that all COVID-19 vaccines offered by government programs in their communities were important for good health (70 % vs. 87 %). Although more males than females felt that new vaccines generally carry more risks than older vaccines (19 % vs 16 %,), fewer males than females endorsed concern about serious side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (33 % vs 45 %).The linear regression model showed females had a significantly higher VHS total score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.38; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.64; p = 0.004), indicating greater COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among females. It was observed that females had a greater "lack of confidence in vaccines" score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.43; 95 % CI 0.14-0.73; p = 0.004). We did not observe a significant difference in "perceived risk in vaccines" between males and females (adjusted mean difference 0.20; 95 % CI -0.07-0.46; p = 0.1). The inadequate number of participants self-identifying as different from biological sex at birth prevented us from analyzing the VHS score based on gender identity. Conclusions: Among PLWH, females showed greater COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than males. Specifically, compared with males, females had a higher level of lack of confidence in vaccines. Fewer females than males believed that COVID-19 vaccines had health benefits at both the personal and societal levels and that recommendations made by their doctor/health care provider and public health officials are reliable and trustworthy. Further investigation into reasons for this difference in opinion still needs to be elucidated. Educational interventions targeted toward females living with HIV are especially needed to increase confidence in vaccination.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».