Collective good and individual choice: Perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine mandate among COVID-19 vaccinated individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine mandates are controversial, and people vary widely in their preferences to support or reject vaccine mandates. For some, vaccine mandates represent a commitment to reduce harm and support public health. For others, vaccine mandates are viewed as a threat to individual freedom and a violation of personal choice. This manuscript investigated support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among COVID-19-vaccinated individuals and identified differences by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were given to COVID-19-vaccinated individuals at a vaccination clinic in South Texas in the U.S. with the goal of identifying attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Associations of interest were analyzed using descriptive statistics. KEY RESULTS: Approximately half of the sample was of Hispanic or Latino origin (48 %); most respondents identified as White (59 %), followed by 12 % who identified as Asian. Overall, 59 % of participants supported the possibility for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Preliminary data showed significant racial differences in willingness to support a possible COVID-19 vaccine mandate (χ2 (1, n = 893) = 26.7, p < .001, phi = .17); 80 % of Asian people reported support for COVID-19 vaccination mandate compared to 50 % to 57 % for other racial groups. Significant differences also emerged by ethnicity (χ2 (4, n = 1033) = 7.12, p = .008, phi = .08) whereby a higher percentage of Latino participants (66 %) reported willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Similarly, significant differences were found by age (χ2 (4, n = 1045) = 20.92, p < .001, phi = .21), yet no significant differences were found by sex or previous COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Support for a COVID-19 vaccination mandate is controversial even among vaccinated people. Identifying and understanding cultural and contextual factors that underlie differences in attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination mandates is essential to advance dialogue and inform educational health campaigns to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Sociodemographic predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and leading concerns with COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women at a South Texas clinic.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 vaccination rates among pregnant women remain low, despite increased risk of COVID-19-related illness and death and demonstrated vaccine safety and efficacy in this population. The objective of this study is to identify sociodemographic predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and elucidate important concerns among the pregnant population in light of evolving conversations regarding COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective survey of pregnant women at a single urban clinic in South Texas was conducted August to September 2021 to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the pregnant population. Collected variables included demographics, COVID-19 beliefs, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap)/influenza vaccine hesitancy, and primary vaccine concerns. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test, asymptotic two-sample Brown-Mood median test, and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred and nine participants completed the survey, 35 vaccinated and 74 unvaccinated, with a response rate of 91.6%. Women who were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant were more likely to be younger (28.0 vs. 31.0 years, p < .004) and further along in pregnancy (30.0 vs. 20.0 weeks, p = .001). They were also more likely to report influenza (odds ratio (OR) 6.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-17.1) and Tdap (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.75-10.7) vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, women who were vaccine hesitant were more likely to believe they did not have enough information to confidently make their decision (OR 4.0; 95% CI 1.4-11.4). Primary concerns with COVID-19 vaccines included: short- and long-term side effects on the pregnancy, personal long-term side effects, and harmful ingredients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitant pregnant women were more likely to be younger, hesitant toward other vaccines, and concerned with pregnancy impact and harmful ingredients. Personal knowledge of other vaccinated pregnant women was associated with significantly higher vaccine acceptance rates. Access to vaccines and concerns about quality control were not cited as reasons for vaccine hesitancy, in contrast to earlier studies on this topic.

Disproportionate Burden of COVID-19 Infection Among Hispanic Patients During the First COVID-19 Surge in South Texas.

Introduction: The morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately burdened Hispanic populations in the United States. While health equity research is typically conducted in populations where Hispanics are the minority, this project analyzes COVID-19 racioethnic transmission trends over the first 6 months of the pandemic within a large majority-minority city in South Texas. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 across inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient settings of a large county health system were included in a clinical registry. For 4644 COVID-19-positive patients between March 16 and August 31, 2020, demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the registry. Race/ethnicity trends over time were compared for patients with and without COVID-19 diagnoses. Logistic regressions identified predictors of inpatient diagnosis by age, race/ethnicity, and testing delay. Results: The proportion of patients with COVID-19 identifying as Hispanic increased rapidly during the pandemic's first months: from 55.6% in March to 85.7% in June. A significantly greater proportion of patients identified as Hispanic within the COVID-19 cohort compared to other diagnoses cohort. Testing delay was 11.6% longer for Hispanic patients, with each day of testing delay associated with 7% increased odds of inpatient COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusion: These findings highlight the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Hispanic populations even within a majority-minority community. In the United States, Hispanic persons are more likely to work frontline jobs, live in multigenerational homes in poverty, and be uninsured. The burden of COVID-19 cases within Bexar County's largest hospital system reflects this systemic inequity. Identifying racioethnic health disparities supports efforts toward mitigating structural factors that predispose minority groups to illness and death.

Health-related quality of life and social determinants of health following COVID-19 infection in a predominantly Latino population.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, more information is needed on its long-term impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and social determinants of health (SDoH). The aim of the study was to assess HRQoL and SDoH among a predominantly Latino population of COVID-19 survivors and to compare effects in Latinos versus non-Latinos. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of a survey (in English and Spanish) of COVID-19 survivors from December 2020 to July 2021. The study assessed sociodemographic data, clinical characteristics, and SDoH, consisting of 10 COVID-19-related concerns. The PROMIS-29 + 2 (PROPr) measure, which captures 8 HRQoL domains and a preference-based health utility, was used to assess HRQoL. Bivariate analyses included chi-square tests and t-tests. Generalized linear models were conducted for multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of 230 respondents (6.3% response rate), the mean [SD] age was 43.1 [14.3] years; 83.0% were Latino; the mean [SD] time since diagnosis was 8.1 [3.2] months; and 12.6% had a history of hospitalization with COVID-19. HRQoL scores were slightly worse than population norms on all domains, especially anxiety; the mean [SD] PROPr health utility was 0.36 [0.25]. Domain scores were similar by ethnicity except for cognitive function-abilities, where scores were lower in Latinos. Multivariable analyses revealed that: (1) financial concerns were associated with worse health utility, as well as worse scores on all 8 PROMIS domains; (2) interpersonal conflict was associated with worse health utility and worse scores on 6 of the 8 PROMIS domains (anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social function, and pain interference); and (3) Latino ethnicity was only associated with 1 PROMIS domain (cognitive function-abilities) after controlling for covariates. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection is associated with HRQoL decrements long after the acute infection, and financial concerns and interpersonal conflict are particularly associated with worse HRQoL.

Low Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Students Across Health Science Disciplines in Texas.

Introduction: Although the development of COVID-19 vaccines represents a triumph of modern medicine, studies suggest vaccine hesitancy exists among key populations, including healthcare professionals. In December 2020, a large academic medical center offered COVID-19 vaccination to 3439 students in medicine, nursing, dentistry, and other health professions. With limited vaccine hesitancy research in this population, this study evaluates the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare students, including predictors of hesitancy and top concerns with vaccination. Methods: The authors distributed a cross-sectional survey to all healthcare students (n = 3,439) from 12/17/2020 to 12/23/2020. The survey collected age, sex, perceived risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 without vaccination, perceived impact on health if infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine concerns. In 2021, logistic regressions identified risk factors associated with hesitancy. Results: The response rate was 30.0% (n = 1030) with median age of 25.0. Of respondents, 19.4% were hesitant to accept COVID-19 vaccination, while 66.6% reported at least one concern with the vaccine. Medical discipline, history of COVID-19 infection, perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, and perceived severity of illness if infected were predictor variables of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (p < 0.05). Age, sex, and exposure to in-person clinical care were not predictive of vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions: Fewer students reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than expected from surveys on the general public and on healthcare workers. Continued research is needed to evaluate shifting attitudes around COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare professionals and students. With COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy a growing concern in young adults, a survey of this size and breadth will be helpful to other academic medical centers interested in vaccinating their students and to persons interested in leveraging predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for targeted intervention.