The Influence of Mass Media on the COVID-19 Vaccination Decision-making Process: Prospective Survey-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic was exacerbated by an infodemic of conflating accurate and inaccurate information with divergent political messages, leading to varying adherence to health-related behaviors. In addition to the media, people received information about COVID-19 and the vaccine from their physicians and closest networks of family and friends. OBJECTIVE: This study explored individuals' decision-making processes in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, focusing on the influence of specific media outlets, political orientation, personal networks, and the physician-patient relationship. We also evaluated the effect of other demographic data like age and employment status. METHODS: An internet survey was disseminated through the Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine Facebook account. The survey included questions on media sources for COVID-19 information, political affiliation, presidential candidate choice, and multiple Likert-type agreement scale questions on conceptions of the vaccine. Each respondent was assigned a media source score, which represented the political leaning of their media consumption. This was calculated using a model based on data from the Pew Research Center that assigned an ideological profile to various news outlets. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 1757 respondents, with 89.58% (1574/1757) of them choosing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Those employed part-time and the unemployed were at 1.94 (95% CI 1.15-3.27) and 2.48 (95% CI 1.43-4.39) greater odds of choosing the vaccine than those employed full-time. For every 1-year increase in age, there was a 1.04 (95% CI 1.02-1.06) multiplicative increase in odds of choosing to receive the vaccine. For every 1-point increase in media source score toward more Liberal or Democrat, there was a 1.06 (95% CI 1.04-1.07) multiplicative increase in odds of choosing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The Likert-type agreement scale showed statistically significant differences (P<.001) between respondents; those who chose the vaccine agreed more strongly on their belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the influence of their personal beliefs, and the encouragement and positive experiences of family and friends. Most respondents rated their personal relationship with their physician to be good, but this factor did not correlate with differences in vaccine decision. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple factors are involved, the role of mass media in shaping attitudes toward vaccines cannot be ignored, especially its ability to spread misinformation and foster division. Surprisingly, the effect of one's personal physician may not weigh as heavily in one's decision-making process, potentially indicating the need for physicians to alter their communication style, including involvement in social media. In the era of information overload, effective communication is critical in ensuring the dissemination of accurate and reliable information to optimize the vaccination decision-making process.

Opioid-Associated Amnestic Syndrome.

Opioid-associated amnestic syndrome (OAS) is a relatively new condition that is associated with opioid abuse and has increased in prevalence since the notable rise in opioid-related deaths and opioid-related hospitalizations of the opioid crisis. Patients often present with acute anterograde amnesia and current opioid abuse, most commonly fentanyl. OAS is frequently diagnosed when other potentially infectious or metabolic conditions such as encephalitis and seizures are ruled out, as these conditions can also present similarly to OAS. This case highlights the signs, symptoms, and hallmark characteristics of OAS, including bilateral hippocampal edema and anterograde amnesia.

Do Words Matter? Health Care Providers' Use of the Term Prediabetes.

Communication of risk is not solely the transfer of information; it is an interaction and exchange of ideas between concerned individuals. Health care provider communication about type 2 diabetes risk status may influence individual participation in behaviours that prevent or delay the disease, which is concerning from a public health perspective. The term prediabetes is used to convey risk status and little is known about how health care providers view or use the term. In this article, we describe health care provider use and perceptions of the term prediabetes drawing on data from a survey conducted between August and November 2011 of 15 health care providers practicing in Southeast Wyoming and Northern Colorado USA. We used a grounded theory research design to guide data collection and analysis and in the interviews invited providers to describe their use and perception of the term prediabetes. We found that providers use of the term 'prediabetes' depended on their view of the term's meaning (such as, whether patients were likely to understand or be confused by it) and impact (in terms of motivating patients to mitigate risk). We found there were differences in providers' perceptions of the negative and positive associations of the term and this influenced whether or not they used it. These findings are not surprising given the lack of consensus over definitions and diagnosis criteria for prediabetes. Given this this lack of agreement, there are difficulties about the use of the term prediabetes and its use should take place within effective risk communication. Health care providers must consider essential aspects of risk communication in order to enable individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes to mitigate the risk and by doing so reduce incidence and prevalence rates of the disease.