Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Prev Med Rep ; 35: 102367, 2023 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37638353

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to assess differences in COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake between low-income and non-low-income adults and across race-ethnicity. We utilized data from the COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden online survey, which included baseline (12/17/2020-2/11/2021) and 6-month follow-up (8/13/2021-9/9/2021) surveys. The sample included 1,500 Black/African American, Latino, and White low-income adults living in the U.S. (N = 500 each). A non-low-income cohort was created for comparison (n = 1,188). Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess differences in vaccine willingness and uptake between low-income and non-low-income adults, as well as across race-ethnicity (low-income adults only). Only low-income White adults were less likely to be vaccinated compared to their non-low-income counterparts (extremely willing vs. not at all: OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.39-0.86); low-income Black/African American and Latino adults were just as willing or more willing to vaccinate. At follow-up, only 30.2% of low-income adults who reported being unwilling at baseline were vaccinated at follow-up. White low-income adults (63.6%) appeared less likely to be vaccinated, compared to non-low-income White adults (80.9%), low-income Black/African American (70.7%), and low-income Latino adults (72.4%). Distrust in the government (46.6), drug companies (44.5%), and vaccine contents (52.1%) were common among those unwilling to vaccinate. This prospective study among a diverse sample of low-income adults found that low-income White adults were less willing and less likely to vaccinate than their non-low-income counterparts, but this difference was not observed for Black/African American or Latino adults. Distrust and misinformation were prevalent among those who remained unvaccinated at follow-up.

2.
J Rural Health ; 39(4): 756-764, 2023 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36863851

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake between rural and nonrural adults, and within rural racial-ethnic groups. METHODS: We utilized data from the COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden online survey, which included 1,500 Black/African American, Latino, and White rural adults (n = 500 each). Baseline (12/2020-2/2021) and 6-month follow-up (8/2021-9/2021) surveys were administered. A cohort of nonrural Black/African American, Latino, and White adults (n = 2,277) was created to compare differences between rural and nonrural communities. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess associations between rurality, race-ethnicity, and vaccine willingness and uptake. FINDINGS: At baseline, only 24.9% of rural adults were extremely willing to be vaccinated and 28.4% were not at all willing. Rural White adults were least willing to be vaccinated, compared to nonrural White adults (extremely willing: aOR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.64). At follow-up, 69.3% of rural adults were vaccinated; however, only 25.3% of rural adults who reported being unwilling to vaccinate were vaccinated at follow-up, compared to 95.6% of adults who were extremely willing to be vaccinated and 76.3% who were unsure. Among those unwilling to vaccinate at follow-up, almost half reported distrust in the government (52.3%) and drug companies (46.2%); 80% reported that nothing would change their minds regarding vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: By August 2021, almost 70% of rural adults were vaccinated. However, distrust and misinformation were prevalent among those unwilling to vaccinate at follow-up. To continue to effectively combat COVID-19 in rural communities, we need to address misinformation to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccination , Adult , Humans , Black or African American , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Hispanic or Latino , Rural Population , White , White People , Vaccination Hesitancy/ethnology , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical data
4.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36168473

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Evidence supporting collection of follow-up blood cultures for Gram-negative bacteremia is mixed. We sought to understand why providers order follow-up blood cultures when managing P. aeruginosa bacteremia and whether follow-up blood cultures in this context are associated with short- and long-term survival. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia at the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2015-2020. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression with time-varying covariates were used to evaluate the association between follow-up blood cultures and time to mortality within 30 days of first positive blood culture. Provider justifications for follow-up blood cultures were identified through chart review. Results: Of 159 eligible patients, 127 (80%) had follow-up blood cultures, including 9 (7%) that were positive for P. aeruginosa and 10 (8%) that were positive for other organisms. Follow-up blood cultures were typically collected "to ensure clearance" or "to guide antibiotic therapy." Overall, 30-day mortality was 25.2%. After risk adjustment for patient characteristics, follow-up blood cultures were associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.08; P = .071). In exploratory analyses, the potential mortality reduction from follow-up blood cultures was driven by their use in patients with Pitt bacteremia scores >0. Conclusions: Follow-up blood cultures are commonly collected for P. aeruginosa bacteremia but infrequently identify persistent bacteremia. Targeted use of follow-up blood cultures based on severity of illness may reduce unnecessary culturing.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...