MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135565742 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12922

<scp>COVID</scp>‐19 vaccine hesitancy among African American hemodialysis patients: A single‐center experience

2021· letter· en· W3135565742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dhakrit Rungkitwattanakul, Andrew A. Yabusaki, Divita Singh, Pamela Lawson, Uzoamaka Nwaogwugwu, Oyije Susan Iheagwara, Constance Mere

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSingle CenterCenter (category theory)VirologyInternal medicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207