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.
PLoS One ; 18(6): e0287024, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37343003

ABSTRACT

Childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences have a strong relationship with health disparities across the lifespan. Despite experiencing approximately doubled rates of trauma, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are poorly characterized in deaf populations. We sought to characterize deaf-specific demographic factors and their association with multiple experiences of ACEs before the age of 18 years old. An analytical cross-sectional approach was used to ascertain associations of deaf-specific demographic factors and experiences with ACEs. The complete dataset included 520 participants for a total response rate of 56%. After adjusting for confounding effects, less severe hearing loss of 16-55 dB (2+ OR: 5.2, 4+ OR: 4.7), having a cochlear implant (2+ OR: 2.1, 4+ OR: 2.6), and not attending at least one school with signing access (2+ OR: 2.4, 4+ OR: 3.7) were significantly and independently associated with reported experiences of multiple ACEs. We conclude that factors associated with childhood hearing loss and language experiences increase risk of experiencing ACEs. Given the strong relationship between ACEs and poor social outcomes, early intervention clinical practice and health policies should consider interventions to support healthy home environments for deaf children.


Subject(s)
Adverse Childhood Experiences , Deafness , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Adverse Childhood Experiences/statistics & numerical data , Deafness/epidemiology , Risk Factors
2.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e049716, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34815278

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are complex; how perceptions of the effectiveness of science, healthcare and government impact personal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is unclear, despite all three domains providing critical roles in development, funding and provision, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine. OBJECTIVE: To estimate impact of perception of science, healthcare systems, and government along with sociodemographic, psychosocial, and cultural characteristics on vaccine acceptance. DESIGN: We conducted a global nested analytical cross-sectional study of how the perceptions of healthcare, government and science systems have impacted COVID-19 on vaccine acceptance. SETTING: Global Facebook, Instagram and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) users from 173 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 7411 people aged 18 years or over, and able to read English, Spanish, Italian, or French. MEASUREMENTS: We used Χ2 analysis and logistic regression-derived adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to evaluate the relationship between effectiveness perceptions and vaccine acceptance controlling for other factors. We used natural language processing and thematic analysis to analyse the role of vaccine-related narratives in open-ended explanations of effectiveness. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding, attitude toward science was a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance, more so than other attitudes, demographic, psychosocial or COVID-19-related variables (aOR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5). The rationale for science effectiveness was dominated by vaccine narratives, which were uncommon in other domains. LIMITATIONS: This study did not include participants from countries where Facebook and Amazon mTurk are not available, and vaccine acceptance reflected intention rather than actual behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: As our findings show, vaccine-related issues dominate public perception of science's impact around COVID-19, and this perception of science relates strongly to the decision to obtain vaccination once available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Government , Humans , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
3.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e046620, 2020 12 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33380488

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Essential healthcare workers (HCW) uniquely serve as both COVID-19 healers and, potentially, as carriers of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed COVID-19-related stigma and bullying against HCW controlling for social, psychological, medical and community variables. DESIGN: We nested an analytical cross-sectional study of COVID-19-related stigma and bullying among HCW within a larger mixed-methods effort assessing COVID-19-related lived experience and impact. Adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CIs evaluated the association between working in healthcare settings and experience of COVID-19-related bullying and stigma, controlling for confounders. Thematic qualitative analysis provided insight into lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying. SETTING: We recruited potential participants in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) through Amazon Mechanical Turk's online workforce and Facebook. PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 7411 people from 173 countries who were aged 18 years or over. FINDINGS: HCW significantly experienced more COVID-19-related bullying after controlling for the confounding effects of job-related, personal, geographic and sociocultural variables (aOR: 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0). HCW more frequently believed that people gossip about others with COVID-19 (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.6) and that people with COVID-19 lose respect in the community (OR: 2.3; 95% CI 2.0 to 2.7), both which elevate bullying risk (OR: 2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.2, and OR: 3.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 4.2, respectively). The lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying relates frequently to public identities as HCW traverse through the community, intersecting with other domains (eg, police, racism, violence). INTERPRETATION: After controlling for a range of confounding factors, HCW are significantly more likely to experience COVID-19-related stigma and bullying, often in the intersectional context of racism, violence and police involvement in community settings.


Subject(s)
Bullying , COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Racism , Social Stigma , Violence , Adult , Bullying/prevention & control , Bullying/psychology , Bullying/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Global Health , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Internationality , Male , Racism/prevention & control , Racism/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Violence/legislation & jurisprudence , Violence/statistics & numerical data
4.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 9(1): 71, 2020 Jun 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32560667

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Practitioners and researchers in the midst of overwhelming coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks are calling for new ways of looking at such pandemics, with an emphasis on human behavior and holistic considerations. Viral outbreaks are characterized by socio-behaviorally-oriented public health efforts aimed at reducing exposure and prevention of morbidity/mortality once infected. These efforts involve different points-of-view, generally, than do those aimed to understand the virus' natural history. Rampant spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cities clearly signals that urban areas contain conditions favorable for rapid transmission of the virus. MAIN TEXT: The Critical Medical Ecology model is a multidimensional, multilevel way of viewing pandemics comprehensively, rooted simultaneously in microbiology and in anthropology, with shared priority for evolution, context, stressors, homeostasis, adaptation, and power relationships. Viewing COVID-19 with a Critical Medical Ecological lens suggests three important interpretations: 1) COVID-19 is equally - if not more - a socially-driven disease as much as a biomedical disease, 2) the present interventions available for primary prevention of transmission are social and behavioral interventions, and 3) wide variation in COVID-19 hospitalization/death rates is not expected to significantly be attributable to a more virulent and rapidly-evolving virus, but rather to differences in social and behavioral factors - and power dynamics - rather than (solely) biological and clinical factors. Cities especially are challenged due to logistics and volume of patients, and lack of access to sustaining products and services for many residents living in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: In the end, SARS-CoV-2 is acting upon dynamic social human beings, entangled within structures and relationships that include but extend far beyond their cells, and in fact beyond their own individual behavior. As a comprehensive way of thinking, the Critical Medical Ecology model helps identify these elements and dynamics in the context of ecological processes that create, shape, and sustain people in their multidimensional, intersecting environments.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Health Planning , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Urban Population , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Ecology , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Determinants of Health
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...