The knowledge, attitude and practice of cardiologists versus other specialists about the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular diseases
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events, both in the general population and especially in individuals with cardiovascular disease. However, the extent to which cardiologists and other physicians support and prescribe influenza vaccination for patients with cardiovascular diseases is not known. Purpose To explore cardiologists' and other specialists' opinions on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing cardiovascular events. Methods From September 2023 to February 2024, a survey was conducted among physicians of any specialty, following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). The survey was available in 5 languages. Participants' opinions were assessed using Likert-type scales. Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was employed, and duplicated responses were prevented using the SurveyMonkey® platform that identifies duplicated IP addresses. Results A total of 2550 physicians from 44 countries answered the survey; the mean age was 46.1±13.1 years, 46.4% were women, and 17.1% were in training. Among respondents 43.6% were cardiologists. While 91.8% of participants considered the influenza vaccine to be very safe, and 90.6% believed that adverse effects of this intervention were rare, a significant proportion did not consider Influenza vaccine to be very beneficial in reducing acute myocardial infarction (54.4% for cardiologists vs 59.3% for other specialists, p=0.013) or stroke (62.2% for cardiologists vs 64.9% for other specialists, p=0.167). summarizes the participants’ opinions regarding the benefits and risks of influenza vaccination. Regarding potential barriers to achieving higher vaccination rates among patients with cardiovascular disease, cardiologists' opinions were similar to those of other specialists (Table 2). Patient beliefs and patients’ fear of vaccine-related adverse effects were identified as major barriers by both cardiologists and other specialists. Only 19.0% of participants reported having some type of checklist system to remind them to recommend the vaccine to their patients. While 73.0% of participants found this topic highly relevant to their daily clinical practice, with no differences between groups (p=0.178), a notable proportion, comprising 48.5% of cardiologists and 47.1% of other specialists, expressed the necessity for additional training to address the risk-benefit ratio of influenza vaccination with their patients (p=0.485). Conclusion Our data suggest that cardiologists and other specialists view the influenza vaccine as safe with a low rate of adverse effects, both in the general population and in individuals with cardiovascular disease. However, a significant proportion of them are unaware of the vaccination's benefit in reducing cardiovascular events. Additionally, about half of the surveyed professionals expressed a need for further education to discuss the benefits of vaccination with their patients.
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 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 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 ».