The knowledge, attitude and practice of cardiologists versus other specialists about the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".