RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A university's understanding of student, faculty, and staff members' intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 has been vital in returning safely to in-person education, research, and engagement with communities and professions. We employed a novel survey to describe intentions across subpopulations of one campus and consider key issues in their rationales for intentions and hesitancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1,077 surveys based on Theory of Planned Behavior were completed from randomly selected pools of undergraduate students, graduate students, part-time faculty, full-time faculty, and staff. Chi-Squared Automated Interaction Detection algorithm analysis provided paths for evaluation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 83 percent of respondents said they would receive the vaccine at their first opportunity, while 5 percent said they would never get the vaccine; the remaining 12 percent wanted more evidence before getting the vaccine. Findings included negative health perceptions of the vaccine, misinformation on the process, as well as negative rhetorical responses differentiated between political partisanship and membership within the campus community, eg, faculty, staff, or student. IMPLICATIONS: Universities seeking to raise campus vaccination rates should concentrate limited resources on the largest populations with the most opportunity to vaccinate. In this study, newer students, with conservative political views, represented a population of opportunity. Their formative beliefs may be influenced by messaging and in collaboration with students' personal physician and/or friend groups. A theory-based approach leads to focused efforts for safer campuses and resumption/continuation of face-to-face interactions for students, faculty, and staff.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Intenção , Humanos , Universidades , Ohio , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , VacinaçãoRESUMO
Effective health education needs ongoing evidence to support policy development and action in a public health crisis, like the opioid epidemic in the United States. Opioid Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) programs work to change behaviors through information, education, and resources to empower people to prevent and respond to opioid overdose poisonings. In this review, we sought to identify the first aid educational components of OEND to address opioid overdose poisoning, identify gaps in the existing literature, and support the development of future studies that could then be systematically reviewed. From a systematic review that identified 2057 peer-reviewed manuscripts, 59 studies demonstrated that the educational literature is sparse, of low quality, lacks quality measures and effective methodologies, and suffers from self-reported and highly inconsistent endpoints, making outcome comparisons challenging, if not impossible. The reviewed OEND programs generally used a public health/health education approach focusing on people who inject opioids, their family and friends, first responders, and rarely the general public. Depending on the learners, interventions were broken down to those <15, 16-90, and >90 minutes, which categorically showed differences in knowledge and first aid response actions. Only eight studies used comparison groups which provide a slightly higher level of evidence. Reports of survival appeared to positively correlate with naloxone kit distribution. Opportunity exists to develop policies and plans that support individual and community efforts through evidence-based guidelines, particularly to the domains of first aid education, so that educators and organizations can deliver efficacious programming that meets the needs of their learners.
RESUMO
For this 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force applied the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and performed 15 systematic reviews, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidance. Furthermore, 4 scoping reviews and 7 evidence updates assessed any new evidence to determine if a change in any existing treatment recommendation was required. The topics covered included training for the treatment of opioid overdose; basic life support, including automated external defibrillator training; measuring implementation and performance in communities, and cardiac arrest centers; advanced life support training, including team and leadership training and rapid response teams; measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance, feedback devices, and debriefing; and the use of social media to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation application.
