RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata (AA), a chronic autoimmune disorder causing non-scarring hair loss, has a greater prevalence in the pediatric population. Like many visible dermatologic disorders, AA can cause significant psychosocial impairment, particularly in children who are undergoing critical periods of psychosocial development. This paper investigates the psychosocial impact of AA on children. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. SCOPUS and PubMed databases were utilized with the terms "alopecia areata," "pediatric," and "psychosocial comorbidities." 12 articles were reviewed, with 6 meeting inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. RESULTS: The review revealed prominent associations between AA and psychosocial comorbidities in children. Psychiatric conditions including anxiety, depression, and OCD, were prevalent in pediatric AA patients, with exacerbation due to increased disease severity. These negatively impacted the Quality of Life (QoL) in affected children. Additionally, the comorbidities extended beyond psychiatric diagnoses, impacting self-esteem, academic performance, peer relationships, and body image satisfaction in children. CONCLUSION: This literature review highlights the significant impact of various psychosocial comorbidities in children with AA, emphasizing the need for early identification and intervention. Healthcare professionals, including psychiatrists, therapists, and dermatologists, can play a significant role in treating pediatric patients with AA. Dermatologists can play a critical role in diagnosing AA and identifying psychosocial comorbidities that may arise and refer patients to appropriate care. Future research should focus on elucidating effective screening tools for dermatologists to identify these comorbidities early, ultimately improving the overall well-being of children with AA.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Defining the characteristics of healthcare worker (HCW) attitudes toward the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine can provide insights into vaccine hesitancy. This study's goal is to determine HCWs' attitudes regarding the COVID-19 vaccination and reasons for vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed HCWs working in institutions in Saginaw, Sanilac, and Wayne counties in Michigan (N = 120) using tipping-scale questions. Analysis of variance and t-test were used to measure HCWs' attitudes toward the COVID-19 virus and vaccines. RESULTS: Most HCWs received (95.9%) and recommended (98.3%) a COVID-19 vaccine. The top three factors that HCWs cited for recommending a COVID-19 vaccine were: (1) efficacy of the vaccine, (2) current exposure to patients with active COVID-19 infection and risk of virus spread, and (3) safety of vaccine and long-term follow-up. Female HCWs or HCWs aged 25-54 years were more concerned about contracting COVID-19. Physicians or HCWs aged 55-64 were less concerned regarding the effectiveness and side effects of the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Gender, age, ethnicity, provider type, and medical specialty showed statistically significant differences among COVID-19 attitudes. Focusing educational efforts on HCW demographics who are more likely to have negative attitudes can potentially decrease vaccine hesitancy.
RESUMEN
Background: Mass vaccination serves as an effective strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is a recognized impediment to achieving a vaccination rate necessary to protect communities. However, solutions and interventions to address this issue are limited by a lack of prior research. Methods: Over 200 patients from 18 Michigan counties participated in this study. Each participant received an initial survey, including demographical questions and knowledge and opinion questions regarding COVID-19 and vaccines. Participants were randomly assigned an educational intervention in either video or infographic format. Patients received a post-survey to assess changes in knowledge and attitudes. Paired sample t-tests and ANOVA were used to measure the effectiveness of the educational interventions. Participants also elected to complete a 3-month follow-up survey. Results: Patients showed increased knowledge after the educational intervention in six out of seven COVID-19 topics (p < 0.005). There was increased vaccine acceptance after the intervention but no difference in the effectiveness between the two intervention modalities. Post-intervention, more patients believed in CDC recommendations (p = 0.005), trusted the vaccine (p = 0.001), believed the vaccines had adequate testing (p = 0.019), recognized prior mistreatment in the medical care system (p = 0.005), agreed that a source they trust told them to receive a vaccine (p = 0.015), and were worried about taking time off of work to get a vaccine (p = 0.023). Additionally, post-intervention, patients were less concerned about mild reactions of the virus (p = 0.005), the rapid development of the vaccines (p < 0.001), and vaccine side effects (p = 0.031). Data demonstrated that attitude and knowledge improved when comparing pre-educational intervention to follow-up but decreased from post-intervention to follow-up. Conclusion: The findings illustrate that educational interventions improved COVID-19 and vaccine knowledge among patients and that the knowledge was retained. Educational interventions serve as powerful tools to increase knowledge within communities and address negative views on vaccination. Interventions should be continually utilized to reinforce information within communities to improve vaccination rates.
