Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in adults with haematological malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: Despite people with haematological malignancies being particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection and complications, vaccine hesitancy may be a barrier to optimal vaccination. This study explored attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in people with haematological malignancies. METHODS: People with haematological malignancies at nine Australian health services were surveyed between June and October, 2021. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination were explored using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Open-ended comments were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: A total of 869 people with haematological malignancies (mean age 64.2 years, 43.6% female) participated. Most participants (85.3%) reported that they had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Participants who were younger, spoke English as a non-dominant language, and had a shorter time since diagnosis were less likely to be vaccinated. Those who were female or spoke English as their non-dominant language reported greater vaccine side-effects concerns. Younger participants reported greater concerns about the vaccine impacting their treatment. CONCLUSION: People with haematological malignancies reported high vaccine uptake, however, targeted education for specific participant groups may address vaccine hesitancy concerns, given the need for COVID-19 vaccine boosters.

Anticipatory anxiety and participation in cancer screening. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current evidence on the association between anticipatory anxiety, defined as apprehension-specific negative affect that may be experienced when exposed to potential threat or uncertainty, and cancer screening to better inform strategies to maximize participation rates. METHODS: Searches related to cancer screening and anxiety were conducted in seven electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL), with potentially eligible papers screened in Covidence. Data extraction was conducted independently by multiple authors. Barriers to cancer screening for any type of cancer and relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and intention were categorized and compared according to the form and target of anxiety and cancer types. RESULTS: A total of 74 articles (nparticipants  = 119,990) were included, reporting 103 relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and 13 instances where anticipatory anxiety was reported as a barrier to screening. Anticipatory anxiety related to a possible cancer diagnosis was often associated with increased screening, while general anxiety showed no consistent relationship. Negative relationships were often found between anxiety about the screening procedure and cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Anticipatory anxiety about a cancer diagnosis may promote screening participation, whereas a fear of the screening procedure could be a barrier. Public health messaging and primary prevention practitioners should acknowledge the appropriate risk of cancer, while engendering screening confidence and highlighting the safety and comfort of screening tests.

The Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six (DIVAS-6): Validation of a Measure to Assess Disease-Related COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes and Concerns.

Patients with underlying comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite the context-specific nature of vaccine hesitancy, there are currently no scales that incorporate disease or treatment-related hesitancy factors. We developed a six-item scale assessing disease-related COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns (The Disease Influenced COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six: DIVAS-6). A survey incorporating the DIVAS-6 was completed by 4683 participants with severe and/or chronic illness (3560 cancer; 842 diabetes; 281 multiple sclerosis (MS)). The survey included the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, demographic, disease-related, and vaccination status questions. The six items loaded onto two factors (disease complacency and vaccine vulnerability) using exploratory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. The two factors were internally consistent. Measurement invariance analysis showed the two factors displayed psychometric equivalence across the patient groups. Each factor significantly correlated with the two Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine scales, showing convergent validity. The summary score showed acceptable ability to discriminate vaccination status across diseases, with the total sample providing good-to-excellent discriminative ability. The DIVAS-6 has two factors measuring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns relating to potential complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to underlying disease (disease complacency) and vaccine-related impact on disease progression and treatment (vaccine vulnerability). This is the first validated scale to measure disease-related COVID-19 vaccine concerns and has been validated in people with cancer, diabetes, and MS. It is quick to administer and should assist with guiding information delivery about COVID-19 vaccination in medically vulnerable populations.

Effect of alcohol consumption on food energy intake: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The relationship between alcohol consumption and body weight is complex and inconclusive being potentially mediated by alcohol type, habitual consumption levels and sex differences. Heavy and regular alcohol consumption has been positively correlated with increasing body weight, although it is unclear whether this is due to alcohol consumption per se or to additional energy intake from food. This review explores the effects of alcohol consumption on food energy intake in healthy adults. CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched through February 2018 for crossover and randomised controlled trials where an alcohol dose was compared with a non-alcohol condition. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. A total of twenty-two studies involving 701 participants were included from the 18 427 papers retrieved. Studies consistently demonstrated no compensation for alcoholic beverage energy intake, with dietary energy intake not decreasing due to alcoholic beverage ingestion. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted on twelve studies and demonstrated that alcoholic beverage consumption significantly increased food energy intake and total energy intake compared with a non-alcoholic comparator by weighted mean differences of 343 (95 % CI 161, 525) and 1072 (95 % CI 820, 1323) kJ, respectively. Generalisability is limited to younger adults (18-37 years), and meta-analyses for some outcomes had substantial statistical heterogeneity or evidence of small-study effects. This review suggests that adults do not compensate appropriately for alcohol energy by eating less, and a relatively modest alcohol dose may lead to an increase in food consumption.

Dietary experiences and support needs of women who gain weight following chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Weight gain is common but poorly understood in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Overweight and obesity are associated with other co-morbidities, reduced self-esteem and an increased risk of cancer recurrence. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences, dietary information and support needs of women who gain weight during chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach to explore the experiences of women from three Melbourne breast cancer clinics. Those who gained weight during the period of enrolment in a cohort study of chemotherapy-related taste changes were invited to participate in this qualitative interview study. Eligibility for inclusion was a gain in body weight between the commencement of chemotherapy and 2 months after its completion. Semi-structured interviews explored changes in diet, physical activity patterns, weight changes, dietary information and support needs and sources. Thematic analysis of the interview data was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen women were interviewed. Three key themes emerged from the following data: (i) undesirable impacts of cancer treatment on diet and physical activity, (ii) surprise and concern associated with changes to weight and diet and (iii) insufficient dietary information and support. CONCLUSIONS: This study has described the practical and informational dietary support needs of women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer and reasons for dietary change. There may be gaps in information and support provision after diagnosis in the areas of weight management, nutrition-related side effects of chemotherapy and healthy eating. Models of dietetic practice and the provision of tailored dietary information should be explored.

Exploring the short-term impact of swapping consumption from standard protein snacks to higher protein snacks on energy intake in social drinkers: Is protein worth a nudge?

Drinking alcoholic beverages stimulates food intake and contributes to the passive overconsumption of dietary energy. As protein is the most satiating of all the macronutrients, increased levels in snacks taken with alcohol have the potential to minimize excess energy consumption. We hypothesized that swapping consumption from retail-available standard protein (SP) snacks to higher protein (HP) snack foods would increase satiety and reduce acute food energy intake in social drinkers. A randomized single-blind crossover trial with 19 healthy participants aged 19-31 years was conducted. Participants attended two separate testing sessions, where they ingested white wine (30 g alcohol) and were offered ad libitum access to either HP snacks with a protein-fortified dip or SP snacks with a dip. There were no significant differences in mean food mass, food energy intake, or subjective appetite ratings between the high and SP snacks (all p > .05). Mean protein intake was significantly increased with HP snacks compared with standard snacks (p < .001). Plasma glucose median incremental area under the curve and mean peak were significantly higher with the SP snacks (all p < .05) but remained within the reference range. This study demonstrated that consumption of a higher amount of protein after a moderate alcohol dose does not result in a change in food mass and energy intake or promote satiety in healthy young adults. The potential for a simple swap to different snack types is unlikely to bring substantial benefits to social drinkers and reduce passive energy consumption.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance, Hesitancy, and Uptake in People with Diabetes in Australia.

Background: This study explored vaccination hesitancy, diabetes-specific COVID-19 vaccination concerns, and whether they predicted vaccination uptake in people with diabetes. Methods: Quantitative, cross-sectional, and predictive approaches were used. An online survey was conducted with people with diabetes attending four Australian health services, using convenience sampling (n = 842). The survey data collected included clinico-demographic characteristics, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and attitudes around COVID-19 vaccine confidence and complacency. Clinico-demographic characteristics that predicted vaccination status, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine-related attitudes were identified using regression analyses. Results: Most participants received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Younger age and type 1 diabetes were associated with lower vaccination status, and they were partially mediated through higher vaccine hesitancy. Younger age and English as a dominant language were associated with higher negative attitudes towards speed of vaccine development. Conclusions: Despite an overall high vaccination rate, general and diabetes-specific COVID-19 vaccine concerns are a barrier to uptake for some people with diabetes, particularly in those who are younger or have type 1 diabetes. A detailed understanding of concerns for particular subgroups can help tailor information to increase vaccine acceptance, particularly in the context of requiring booster doses.

COVID-19 Vaccine Status, Intent, Hesitancy, and Disease-Related Beliefs in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are susceptible to severe COVID-19 outcomes. They were included as a priority group for the Australian COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in early 2021. However, vaccine hesitancy remains a complex barrier to vaccination in this population group, which may be partly related to disease relapse concerns following COVID-19 vaccination. This study examined the COVID-19 vaccination status, intent, hesitancy, and disease-related beliefs in people with MS. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with people with MS receiving care at two Australian health services between September and October 2021. It collected sociodemographic and disease-specific characteristics and responses to validated scales that assessed vaccine hesitancy and general and MS-related vaccine beliefs. RESULTS: Of the 281 participants [mean age 47.7 (SD 12.8) years; 75.8% females], most (82.9%) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Younger participants were less likely to be vaccinated, as were those within 1-5 years of disease duration. After controlling for age, disease duration was not associated with vaccination status. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report less willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, higher vaccine complacency and lower vaccine confidence, greater MS-related vaccine complacency, and higher MS and treatment interaction concerns. CONCLUSIONS: People with MS reported a high vaccination rate, despite general and MS-specific COVID-19 vaccine concerns. Greater MS-specific concerns were reported by those who indicated that their MS was not well-controlled and their MS impacted their daily activities. By understanding the factors that influence vaccine hesitancy and their interplay with MS disease course and treatment concerns, this can inform tailored interventions and educational messages to address these concerns in people with MS. Clinicians, governments, and community organisations are key partners in delivering these interventions and messages, as ongoing booster doses are needed for this vulnerable population.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Patients with Serious Chronic Illnesses during the Initial Australian Vaccine Rollout: A Multi-Centre Qualitative Analysis Using the Health Belief Model.

Background: People with chronic illnesses have increased morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The influence of a person's serious and/or comorbid chronic illness on COVID-19 vaccine uptake is not well understood. Aim: To undertake an in-depth exploration of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among those with various serious and/or chronic diseases in the Australian context, using secondary data analysis of a survey study. Methods: Adults with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 10 Australian health services to undertake a cross-sectional online survey (30 June to 5 October 2021) about COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine hesitancy, confidence and complacency and disease-related decision-making impact. Free-text responses were invited regarding thoughts and feelings about the interaction between the participant's disease, COVID-19, and vaccination. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken using an iterative process and representative verbatim quotes were chosen to illustrate the themes. Results: Of 4683 survey responses (cancer 3560, diabetes 842, and MS 281), 1604 (34.3%) included free-text comments for qualitative analysis. Participants who provided these were significantly less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccination than those who did not comment (72.4% and 86.2%, respectively). People with diabetes were significantly less likely to provide free-text comments than those with cancer or MS (29.0%, 35.1% and 39.9%, respectively). Four key themes were identified from qualitative analysis, which were similar across disease states: (1) having a chronic disease heightened perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of COVID-19; (2) perceived impact of vaccination on chronic disease management and disease-related safety; (3) uncertain benefits of COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) overwhelming information overload disempowering patients. Conclusions: This qualitative analysis highlights an additional layer of complexity related to COVID-19 vaccination decision making in people with underlying health conditions. Appreciation of higher susceptibility to severe COVID-19 outcomes appears to be weighed against uncertain impacts of the vaccine on the progression and management of the comorbid disease. Interactions by clinicians addressing individual factors may alleviate concerns and maximise vaccine uptake in people with significant underlying health conditions.

COVID-19 vaccination rates, intent, and hesitancy in patients with solid organ and blood cancers: A multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: People with cancer are at higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 infection. We investigated COVID-19 vaccine uptake among patients with solid organ and blood cancers and explored factors related to hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of adults with a history of cancer at three health services across metropolitan and regional Victoria. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by the validated Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. RESULTS: There were 1073 respondents: 56% female; median age 62 years (range 23 - 91). Commonest tumor types included breast 29%, gastrointestinal 19%, hematological 15%, genitourinary 15%, and lung 8%. Thirty-six percent had metastatic disease, and 54% were receiving active anticancer treatment. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated positive intent toward COVID-19 vaccination, 10% were undecided, and 6% indicated negative attitudes. At least one vaccine dose had been received by 65% of respondents, leaving 35% unvaccinated. Fifty-eight percent of unvaccinated patients answered that they would "definitely" or "probably" take a vaccine. Higher vaccine uptake was significantly associated with older age, male gender, English as first language, longer time since cancer diagnosis, and not being on current anticancer treatment. Concerns regarding vaccine side effects, particularly thrombosis, and the desire for clear medical advice were prominent among unvaccinated respondents. CONCLUSION: Despite being eligible for COVID-19 vaccination since March 2021, a substantial minority of patients with cancer remained unvaccinated as of August 2021. Targeted communication and educational resources addressing vaccine safety in the context of cancer are key to promoting vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. RESULTS: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19-95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Serious Underlying Medical Conditions and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Large Cross-Sectional Analysis from Australia.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults.

This study aimed to compare the use of the bioelectrical impedance device (BIA) seca® mBCA 515 using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method, for body composition assessment in adults across the spectrum of body mass indices. It explores the utility of simple anthropometric measures (the waist height ratio (WHtR) and waist circumference (WC)) for the assessment of obesity. In the morning after an overnight fast (10 h), 30 participants underwent a body composition DXA (GE iDXA) scan, BIA (seca 515), and anthropometric measures. Compared to the DXA reference measure, the BIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 0.32 kg (limits of agreement -3.8 kg, 4.4 kg); overestimated fat free mass (FFM) by 0.43 kg (limits of agreement -8.2 kg, 4.3 kg). Some of the variation was explained by body mass index (BMI), as for FM, the mean difference of the normal range BMI group was smaller than for the overweight/obese group (0.25 kg and 0.35 kg, respectively) with wider limits of agreement (-4.30 kg, 4.81 kg, and -3.61 kg, 4.30 kg, respectively). There were significant differences in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume measurements between methods with BIA systematically overestimating VAT compared to DXA. WC was more strongly correlated with DXA FM (rho = 0.90, p < 0.001) than WHtR (rho = 0.83, p < 0.001). BIA had some agreement with DXA; however, they are not equivalent measures for the range of BMIs explored, with DXA remaining the more informative tool. WC is a useful and simple assessment tool for obesity.

Reliability of Compartmental Body Composition Measures in Weight-Stable Adults Using GE iDXA: Implications for Research and Practice.

The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and precision of body compartment measures, in particular visceral adipose tissue, in weight stable adults over a range of BMIs using GE-Lunar iDXA. Weight-stable participants aged 18⁻65 years had a total body composition scan on GE-Lunar iDXA either on three separate occasions over a three month period (n = 51), or on a single occasion for duplicate scans with repositioning (n = 30). The coefficient of variation (CV%) and least significant change (LSC) of body compartments were calculated. The CV was higher for all measures over three months (range 0.8⁻5.9%) compared with same-day precision-scans (all < 2%). The CV for visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was considerably higher than all other body compartments (42.2% three months, 16.2% same day scanning). To accurately measure VAT mass using the GE iDXA it is recommended that participants have a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m², or VAT mass > 500 g. Changes observed in VAT mass levels below 500 g should be interpreted with caution due to lack of precision and reliability. All other compartmental measures demonstrated good reliability, with less than 6% variation over three months.

Reduced Willingness to Expend Effort for Reward in Obesity: Link to Adherence to a 3-Month Weight Loss Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) compare the willingness to expend effort for rewards between young adults with healthy weight, overweight, and obesity; and (2) to examine how individual differences in the willingness to expend effort for rewards predict adherence to weight loss treatment. METHODS: Seventy-three participants completed the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT). Of those 73 participants, 42 young adults with excess weight took part in a 3-month weight loss treatment after completing the EEfRT. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare the groups with healthy weight, overweight, and obesity in the EEfRT. Logistic regression models, including the proportion of hard-task choices for each reward probability condition as predictors (12%, 50%, and 88%), were conducted to longitudinally predict adherence in the treatment. RESULTS: Young adults with obesity were significantly less willing to expend effort for high-magnitude rewards compared with participants with overweight (P = 0.05). The willingness to expend effort for uncertain rewards (50% probability) was distinguished between completers and dropouts in the weight loss treatment (χ2 = 5.04, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with obesity, compared with their counterparts with overweight, have diminished motivation to expend effort for obtaining high-magnitude rewards. Less willingness to expend effort for the most uncertain rewards predicts poor adherence to weight loss treatment.