Veterinarian COVID-19 vaccine uptake was widespread, but safety and efficacy concerns held some back: descriptive results from a survey of AVMA members' perceptions of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Assess COVID-19 vaccine uptake among veterinarians and describe unvaccinated veterinarians' perceptions of COVID-19 disease and vaccines. SAMPLE: 2,721 (14%) of 19,654 randomly sampled AVMA members. PROCEDURES: A survey of AVMA members was conducted between June 8 and June 18, 2021. Information was collected on COVID-19 experience, vaccination intention, and perceptions of COVID-19 disease and vaccines. RESULTS: A total of 2,721 AVMA members completed the survey. Most respondents reported receiving a COVID-19 vaccine (89% [2,428/2,721]). Most unvaccinated respondents disagreed with concerns about contracting (67% [196/292]) or being harmed by (65% [187/287]) COVID-19 but agreed with concerns about short- (79% [228/290]) and long-term (89% [258/289]) side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Over 91% (268/292) did not agree that COVID-19 vaccine benefits outweigh the risk. Although 83% (244/293) of unvaccinated respondents reported being unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine, 47% (137/291) agreed they would be more likely if they knew people vaccinated without serious side effects. Perceptions of COVID-19 disease severity and susceptibility, beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine benefits, and barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination varied with vaccination intention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of the AVMA survey suggested that COVID-19 vaccination was widespread among veterinarians in June 2021. Understanding unvaccinated respondents' health beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines may facilitate veterinarian vaccination participation. Veterinarians who abstained from COVID-19 vaccination cited concerns about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of COVID-19 vaccines. Our results suggested that demonstrating vaccine safety and a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio of vaccination may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among veterinarians.

A comparison of veterinary students enrolled and not enrolled in an animal-welfare course.

An online survey was conducted to compare 46 veterinary students who previously enrolled in a discussion-based animal-welfare elective with 45 veterinary students who did not take the course. Students were asked a series of questions about their attitudes toward animal welfare and were presented with animal-use scenarios that had not previously been discussed in the elective course: greyhound racing, veal calf production, and the use of genetically engineered mice in research. For each scenario, students' actual knowledge was scored on the basis of open-ended factual questions. Students were also asked how comfortable they were with educating themselves about each topic and to describe factors they would use to evaluate the welfare of animals in each scenario. Factors were classified as being associated with (a) biological functioning, (b) ability to exist in a natural state, or (c) measures of affective state or feelings. There was no significant difference in actual knowledge of the three scenarios between students who took the course and those who did not. Students who took the course were significantly more likely to be comfortable about educating themselves on each of the three animal-use scenarios and scored significantly higher in identifying welfare-affecting factors than students who did not take the course. The results suggest that this approach to instruction is an effective way to teach veterinary students about how to educate themselves about animal-welfare issues and to increase their confidence in appropriately evaluating novel animal-welfare topics.

Guidelines for animal-assisted interventions in health care facilities.

Many hospitals and long-term care facilities in North America currently permit animals to visit with their patients; however, the development of relevant infection control and prevention policies has lagged, due in large part to the lack of scientific evidence regarding risks of patient infection associated with animal interaction. This report provides standard guidelines for animal-assisted interventions in health care facilities, taking into account the available evidence.