scholarly journals 567. Reasons for Deferral of COVID-19 Vaccines Among Arab American Healthcare Professionals Living in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S385-S386
Author(s):  
Anita Shallal ◽  
Evi Abada ◽  
Rami Musallam ◽  
Omar Fehmi ◽  
Linda Kaljee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arab Americans ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Arab American ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
The Us ◽  
E Mail

Abstract Background The WHO identified the three most common reasons for worldwide vaccine hesitancy to be safety concerns, lack of knowledge and awareness, and religion and cultural issues. There is limited information on this topic among Arab Americans, a rapidly growing demographic in the US. We sought to determine the reasons for deferral of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the US. Methods This was a cross-sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Results A total of 4,000 surveys were sent via e-mail from December 28 2020 to January 31 2021. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18-29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. Among 515 respondents, 41.9% (n=216) would receive the vaccine within one month of it becoming available to them, and 30.2% (n=156) had already received a vaccine. Among those who would defer the vaccine, 9.3% (n=48) would receive it within 1-3 months, 5.6% (n=29) within 3-6 months and 6.6% (n=34) after over 6 months or longer. 6.2% (n=32) would not receive the vaccine. The three most commonly reported reasons for deferral of vaccine among 75 vaccine hesitant respondents were: “I am worried about the side effects” (65.3%), “I am worried the vaccine moved through clinical trials too fast (54.7%), and “There is no information about long term side effects of the vaccine” (52%). Data indicate that about a quarter of respondents also expressed distrust of the government and the pharmaceutical industry. The results are summarized in table 1. Conclusion Reasons cited by this sample of Arab Americans for deferring the COVID-19 vaccine mirror more general concerns about vaccine side effects and need for information. Concerns about clinical trial procedures and distrust have become more prevalent with COVID-19. This data can help inform COVID-19 vaccine advocacy efforts among health care providers, and thus could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population. Disclosures Marcus Zervos, MD, contrafect (Advisor or Review Panel member)janssen (Grant/Research Support)merck (Grant/Research Support)moderna (Grant/Research Support)pfizer (Grant/Research Support)serono (Grant/Research Support)

scholarly journals Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes among Arab American Healthcare Professionals Living in the United States

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 942
Author(s):  
Anita Shallal ◽  
Evi Abada ◽  
Rami Musallam ◽  
Omar Fehmi ◽  
Linda Kaljee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Arab American ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
E Mail

Background: Vaccine hesitancy is the next great barrier for public health. Arab Americans are a rapidly growing demographic in the United States with limited information on the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. We therefore sought to study the attitudes towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the United States. Methods: This was a cross sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Results: A total of 4000 surveys were sent via e-mail from 28 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, and 513 responses were received. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18–29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. On multivariable analysis, we found that respondents who had declined an influenza vaccine in the preceding 5 years (p < 0.001) and allied health professionals (medical assistants, hospital administrators, case managers, researchers, scribes, pharmacists, dieticians and social workers) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (p = 0.025). In addition, respondents earning over $150,000 US dollars annually were less likely to be vaccine hesitant and this finding was significant on multivariable analysis (p = 0.011). Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy among health care providers could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population, and such data may help inform vaccine advocacy efforts.

scholarly journals The comparison of vaccine hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in China and the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taoran Liu ◽  
Zonglin He ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Ni Yan ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, viz. China and the United States (US).MethodA cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the US, and discrete choice experiments as well as Likert scales were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to the vaccination acceptance. A propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries.ResultsA total of 9,077 (5,375 and 3,702, respectively, from China and the US) respondents have completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% respondents from China positively accept the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% respondents form the US positively accept it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the US respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the US attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint that the cost of vaccination covers the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Also, respondents from China tend to concerned much more about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs 6.12%) and have lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19.ConclusionWhile the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between countries are observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in two countries, the vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.

scholarly journals COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in underserved communities of North Carolina

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0248542
Author(s):  
Irene A. Doherty ◽  
William Pilkington ◽  
Laurin Brown ◽  
Victoria Billings ◽  
Undi Hoffler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Underserved Communities ◽  
Safety Concerns

Background In the United States, underserved communities including Blacks and Latinx are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, describe attitudes related to vaccination, and identify correlates among historically marginalized populations across 9 counties in North Carolina. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey distributed at free COVID-19 testing events in underserved rural and urban communities from August 27 –December 15, 2020. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as the response of “no” or “don’t know/not sure” to whether the participant would get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it became available. Results The sample comprised 948 participants including 27.7% Whites, 59.6% Blacks, 12.7% Latinx, and 63% female. 32% earned <$20K annually, 60% owned a computer and ~80% had internet access at home. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 68.9% including 62.7%, 74%, and 59.5% among Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, respectively. Between September and December, the largest decline in vaccine hesitancy occurred among Whites (27.5 percentage points), followed by Latinx (17.6) and only 12.0 points among Blacks. 51.2% of respondents reported vaccine safety concerns, 23.7% wanted others to get vaccinated first, and 63.1% would trust health care providers about the COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with hesitancy in multivariable logistic regression included being female (OR = 1.90 95%CI [1.36, 2.64]), being Black (OR = 1.68 1.16, 2.45]), calendar month (OR = 0.76 [0.63, 0.92]), safety concerns (OR = 4.28 [3.06, 5.97]), and government distrust (OR = 3.57 [2.26, 5.63]). Conclusions This study engaged the community to directly reach underserved minority populations at highest risk of COVID-19 that permitted assessment of vaccine hesitancy (which was much higher than national estimates), driven in part by distrust, and safety concerns.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela E. Pennock
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Identity ◽  
First Century ◽  
Arab Americans ◽  
Arab American ◽  
Muslim Americans ◽  
Politics And Culture ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

As we approach the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States continues to wrestle with defining its role in Middle East conflicts and fully accepting and fairly treating Arab and Muslim Americans. In this contentious and often ill-informed climate, it is crucial to appreciate the struggles, priorities, and accomplishments of Arab Americans over the past several decades, both what has set them apart and what has integrated them into the politics and culture of the United States. Arab American organizing in the environment of minority rights movements in the 1960s and 1970s fostered a heightened consciousness of and pride in Arab American identity....

scholarly journals 1047. Global Surveillance: Susceptibility of Ceftolozane–Tazobactam Against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Collected From Bloodstream Infections in the United States From 2015 to 2017

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S313-S313
Author(s):  
S J Ryan Arends ◽  
Dee Shortridge ◽  
Mariana Castanheira ◽  
Jennifer M Streit ◽  
Robert K Flamm
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Klebsiella Pneumoniae ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Broth Microdilution Method ◽  
The Us ◽  
Tract Infections

Abstract Background Ceftolozane–tazobactam (C-T) is an antibacterial combination of a novel antipseudomonal cephalosporin and a β-lactamase inhibitor. C-T was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 and by the European Medicines Agency in 2015 to treat complicated urinary tract infections, acute pyelonephritis, and complicated intra-abdominal infections. The Program to Assess Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) monitors Gram-negative (GN) isolates resistant to C-T worldwide. In the current study, isolates were collected from patients hospitalized with bloodstream infections (BSIs) from 2015 to 2017 within the United States. Methods A total of 3,377 prevalence-based BSI GN isolates, including Escherichia coli (EC; 1,422), Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPN, 630), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA; 344), were collected during 2015 to 2017 from 32 PACTS hospitals in the United States. Isolates were tested for C-T susceptibility by CLSI broth microdilution method in a central monitoring laboratory (JMI Laboratories). Other antibiotics tested were amikacin (AMK), cefepime (FEP), ceftazidime (CAZ), colistin (COL), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), and piperacillin–tazobactam (TZP). Antibiotic-resistant phenotypes analyzed (CLSI, 2018) for EC and KPN included carbapenem-R (CR) and non-CR extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL); as well as CAZ-nonsusceptible (CAZ-NS), MEM-NS, and COL-NS PSA. Results Of the 3,377 BSI GN isolates, 3,219 (95.3%) had a C-T MIC ≤ 4 mg/L. The three most prevalent GN species isolated from BSIs were EC (42.1%), KPN (18.7%), and PSA (10.2%). The %S of C-T and comparators for the top three pathogens are shown in the table. C-T showed activity against these isolates with %S of ≥96.0% against all three species. Of the comparators tested, AMK and COL also had high %S against these isolates. Conclusion C-T demonstrated activity against the most prevalent contemporary GN isolates from BSIs in the US. C-T was the only beta-lactam that had ≥96%S against all three species: EC, KPN, and PSA. For PSA, C-T maintained activity (&gt;90%S) against isolates resistant to CAZ, TZP, and MEM. These data suggest that C-T may be a useful treatment for GN BSI. Disclosures S. J. R. Arends, Merck: Research Contractor, Research support. D. Shortridge, Merck: Research Contractor, Research support. M. Castanheira, Merck: Research Contractor, Research support. J. M. Streit, Merck: Research Contractor, Research support. R. K. Flamm, Merck: Research Contractor, Research support.

scholarly journals Ambulance Crash Characteristics in the US Defined by the Popular Press: A Retrospective Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teri L. Sanddal ◽  
Nels D. Sanddal ◽  
Nicolas Ward ◽  
Laura Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Prehospital Care ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Medical Database ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Us ◽  
Dangerous Place ◽  
Safety Restraints ◽  
Crash Characteristics

Ambulance crashes are a significant risk to prehospital care providers, the patients they are carrying, persons in other vehicles, and pedestrians. No uniform national transportation or medical database captures all ambulance crashes in the United States. A website captures many significant ambulance crashes by collecting reports in the popular media (the website is mentioned in the introduction). This report summaries findings from ambulance crashes for the time period of May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2009. Of the 466 crashes examined, 358 resulted in injuries to prehospital personnel, other vehicle occupants, patients being transported in the ambulance, or pedestrians. A total of 982 persons were injured as a result of ambulance crashes during the time period. Prehospital personnel were the most likely to be injured. Provider safety can and should be improved by ambulance vehicle redesign and the development of improved occupant safety restraints. Seventy-nine (79) crashes resulted in fatalities to some member of the same groups listed above. A total of 99 persons were killed in ambulance crashes during the time period. Persons in other vehicles involved in collisions with ambulances were the most likely to die as a result of crashes. In the urban environment, intersections are a particularly dangerous place for ambulances.

scholarly journals The COVID States Project #75: Attitudes toward COVID-19 boosters before and after Omicron

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy H. Perlis ◽  
Matthew Baum ◽  
Kristin Lunz Trujillo ◽  
David Lazer ◽  
Alauna Safarpour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Health ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
The Us ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
To Receive

Recognizing that the protection conferred by COVID-19 vaccines may wane over time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has encouraged adults in the United States to receive booster shots that can augment their immunity to the virus. While the Biden administration sought to encourage all adults to receive boosters, the CDC initially authorized the shots only for higher-risk individuals. Subsequently, authorization was broadened to all adults, although only higher-risk individuals were encouraged to pursue boosters. Most recently, after substantial criticism, the CDC changed its language to encourage all adults to receive boosters.But regardless of the language, are US adults sufficiently convinced to seek booster shots? Will the same factors that contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccine resistance impact booster shots? The answers may have profound public health implications as the US enters the season during which respiratory viruses typically have the greatest impact, and the highly-transmissible Omicron variant rapidly becomes the dominant form of COVID-19, after being labeled a variant of concern by the World Health Organization on November 26th.Between November 3rd and December 3rd, 2021, the COVID States Project asked 22,277 adults in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia about their attitudes and behaviors regarding COVID-19. In particular, we asked about whether people are vaccinated or intend to be vaccinated, and whether they had sought booster shots or intend to seek a booster shot. In this brief report, we examine attitudes toward COVID-19 booster shots, and whether they differ across particular groups of people. Since the survey was ongoing when news about Omicron emerged in the US, we also take an initial look at whether these attitudes have begun to shift along with perceptions of the threat posed by COVID-19 subsequent to the November 26th announcement.

scholarly journals Immunization Stress-Related Responses: Mitigating Patient Fears and Associated Side Effects Amidst a Global Vaccination Effort

2022 ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Michael Mast ◽  
Yihan Li
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mass Vaccination ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Substantial Role

The event of receiving a vaccine can lead to feelings of stress and anxiety for many patients and may present as adverse events. With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mass vaccination efforts, adverse events following immunization, including immunization stress-related reactions (ISRR), have subsequently increased. Traditionally rare, but increasingly common, cluster events have also become a concern. Demonstrated in recent publications by Hause et al. concerning Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine clinics, these adverse events can lead to personal apprehension towards receiving vaccines, as well as public distrust towards the immunization process. To combat ISRRs, mass vaccination clinics across the United States must create administration protocols to mitigate these responses. Anticipation and swift management can play a substantial role in minimizing frequency and severity of these reactions and prevent future vaccine hesitancy.

Physician Attitudes regarding Prostaglandin Treatment for Glaucoma in the United States and Europe

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.C. Stewart ◽  
J.A. Stewart ◽  
L.A. Nelson ◽  
B. Kruft
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Attitudes ◽  
Conjunctival Hyperemia ◽  
The Us ◽  
E Mail

Purpose To evaluate physician use of prostaglandins (latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost) in the United States (US) and Europe (EU). Methods One thousand multiple-choice surveys were distributed via e-mail in the US and EU. Results The authors received 71 responses (US 40 [8%] and EU 31 [6%]). Physicians preferred prostaglandin monotherapy (US 39 [98%] and EU 22 [71%], p=0.003), usually latanoprost (US 32 [80%] and EU 22 [71%], p=0.45). When more efficacy was required, US physicians would typically switch (23 [58%]) and EU physicians would add therapy (22 [71%], p=0.007). In both continents 45% of respondents stated bimatoprost was more efficacious. Conclusions US and EU physicians prefer prostaglandin monotherapy, most commonly latanoprost. Bimatoprost is often perceived as more effective, but having a higher incidence of conjunctival hyperemia.

Health providers’ perspectives on medical marijuana use.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 235-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Martins-Welch ◽  
Christian Nouryan ◽  
Myriam Kline ◽  
Sony Modayil
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Medical Marijuana ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Cord Injury

235 Background: According to the CDC, 117 million Americans have one or more chronic health conditions and 31% have used two or more prescription drugs in the past month. Approximately 40% of adults in the United States are using some form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Medical marijuana is one such medicine, and to date 29 states have legalized medical marijuana. Methods: A multicenter, anonymous, on-line survey of health care providers was distributed via e-mail within a large health system in the NY Metropolitan area. The survey was distributed in April and May of 2017. The specific aim was to collect information about health care providers’ perspectives on the use of MM in general and for specific medical conditions. Results: The sample (n = 137) consisted of 4% RNs, 10% NPs, 10% fellows, 21% resident physicians, and 52% attending physicians. Average experience was 13 years (range: 0-43), half (53%) were under 40 years old and just over half (56%) were female. Most practitioners recognized a benefit of MM for the treatment of cancer-associated symptoms, few were concerned with side effects and 5% of responders answered that MM was not appropriate at any stage of illness. Responders were “most likely to recommend or refer MM if other therapies were not effective” for cancer (83%), chronic pain (68%), spinal cord injury with spasticity (50%), MS (46%), epilepsy (42%), neuropathy (42%) and Parkinson’s disease (41%). Most providers (77%) believed that MM has the potential to reduce overall opioid use, this was found to be statistically more common in younger providers. The most common conditions that providers reported their patients were requesting MM for were cancer (37%), chronic pain (26%) and neuropathy (10%). The most common concerns about MM use were side effects (16%), addiction (13%), legal consequences (11%), cost (7%) and that other providers would judge MM use (7%). Conclusions: Our survey shows that providers are overwhelmingly in support of MM use in patients with chronic illness, particularly in cancer patients. However providers describe significant and practical concerns about MM utilization. Given the rate at which MM is being legalized throughout the country, it is imperative that there be increased focus on education and clinical studies on MM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document