MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391011928 · doi:10.7759/cureus.52480

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates and Predictors of Uptake Among Adults With Coronary Heart Disease: Insight From the 2022 National Health Interview Survey

2024· article· en· W4391011928 on OpenAlexaff
Victor C Ezeamii, Victor C Ofochukwu, Charity Iheagwara, Tracy Asibu, Oluwatoyin Ayo-Farai, Yonas H Gebeyehu, Eunice O Kaglo, Moses C Odoeke, O Adeyemi, Hameed O Shittu, Okelue E Okobi

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineLogistic regressionNational Health Interview SurveyPandemicPopulationDemographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseEnvironmental healthInternal medicineImmunologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has become a burden to all nations across the globe, and vaccination currently remains the most effective means of fighting the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. From the time of approval and subsequent distribution of the various COVID-19 vaccines, nearly 72.3% (5.5 billion) of the globe's population have been vaccinated, leaving slightly more than a quarter of the globe's population at risk. With the approval and availability of booster vaccine dosages to individuals with chronic conditions, including coronary heart disease (CHD), it is vital to comprehend the factors underlying the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in such subgroups. Further, the American Heart Association recommends vaccination against COVID-19 in populations with coronary heart disease (CHD). This is because they are more likely to experience severe outcomes due to COVID-19 infection. This study assesses the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines as well as predictors of its uptake. METHODS: Using the 2022 survey data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1,708 adults ≥ 40 years with CHD who responded yes/no to whether they had received the vaccine were identified. A Pearson's chi-square test was used to ascertain differences among those who had received the vaccine and those who had not. A logistic regression (multivariate regression) was used to evaluate predictors of COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: About 1,491/1,708 (86.8%) adults ≥ 40 years reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. Among them, 1,065/1,491 (68.4%) had received more than two vaccination doses. The predictors of COVID-19 vaccination were older age (odds ratio (OR): 2.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-2.89), p < 0.001), ratio of family income to poverty threshold of 1 and above (OR: 2.40 (95% CI: 1.58-3.64), p < 0.001), having a college degree (OR: 3.09 (95% CI: 1.85-5.14), p < 0.001), and being insured (OR: 3.26 (95% CI: 1.03-10.26), p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: The findings of the study have indicated that 68.4% of adults 40 years and above with CHD have been vaccinated against COVID-19 and have received more than two doses of vaccines. More than half have followed recommendations and have received booster doses of the vaccine. Old age (above 40 years) and a higher socioeconomic class are associated with being more likely to follow COVID-19 vaccination guidelines. Despite the higher vaccination rate of 68.4% in the adults with heart diseases group, strategies for improving booster vaccine awareness alongside accessibility are needed to enhance additional dosage uptake, protect them against novel COVID-19 variants, and ensure the development of sustained immunity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207