Nancy Ortiz, Adela Hoffman, Amy Helene Schnall, Alexey Clara, Emily A Lilo, Hannah Lofgren, Lisa Guerrero, James S Miller, Peter Houck, Nathan Weed, Edgar Monterroso
{"title":"COVID-19 Prevention Practices and Vaccine Acceptability Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Households in an Agricultural Community-Washington, 2020.","authors":"Nancy Ortiz, Adela Hoffman, Amy Helene Schnall, Alexey Clara, Emily A Lilo, Hannah Lofgren, Lisa Guerrero, James S Miller, Peter Houck, Nathan Weed, Edgar Monterroso","doi":"10.1017/dmp.2024.107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate COVID-19 disparities between Hispanic/Latino persons (H/L) and non-H/L persons in an agricultural community by examining behavioral and demographic differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In September 2020, we conducted Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, Washington, to evaluate differences between H/L and non-H/L populations in COVID-19 risk beliefs, prevention practices, household needs, and vaccine acceptability. We produced weighted sample frequencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More households from predominately H/L census blocks (H/L-CBHs) versus households from predominately non-H/L census blocks (non-H/L-CBHs) worked in essential services (79% versus 57%), could not telework (70% versus 46%), and reported more COVID-19 cases (19% versus 4%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs practiced prevention strategies: avoiding gatherings (81% versus 61%), avoiding visiting friends/family (73% versus 36%), and less restaurant dining (indoor 24% versus 39%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs needed housing (16% versus 4%) and food assistance (19% versus 6%). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in H/L-CBHs and non-H/L-CBHs was 42% versus 46%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite practicing prevention measures with greater frequency, H/L-CBHs had more COVID-19 cases. H/L-CBHs worked in conditions with a higher likelihood of exposure. H/L-CBHs had increased housing and food assistance needs due to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was similarly low (<50%) between groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":54390,"journal":{"name":"Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness","volume":"18 ","pages":"e261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2024.107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To investigate COVID-19 disparities between Hispanic/Latino persons (H/L) and non-H/L persons in an agricultural community by examining behavioral and demographic differences.
Methods: In September 2020, we conducted Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, Washington, to evaluate differences between H/L and non-H/L populations in COVID-19 risk beliefs, prevention practices, household needs, and vaccine acceptability. We produced weighted sample frequencies.
Results: More households from predominately H/L census blocks (H/L-CBHs) versus households from predominately non-H/L census blocks (non-H/L-CBHs) worked in essential services (79% versus 57%), could not telework (70% versus 46%), and reported more COVID-19 cases (19% versus 4%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs practiced prevention strategies: avoiding gatherings (81% versus 61%), avoiding visiting friends/family (73% versus 36%), and less restaurant dining (indoor 24% versus 39%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs needed housing (16% versus 4%) and food assistance (19% versus 6%). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in H/L-CBHs and non-H/L-CBHs was 42% versus 46%, respectively.
Conclusions: Despite practicing prevention measures with greater frequency, H/L-CBHs had more COVID-19 cases. H/L-CBHs worked in conditions with a higher likelihood of exposure. H/L-CBHs had increased housing and food assistance needs due to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was similarly low (<50%) between groups.
期刊介绍:
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness is the first comprehensive and authoritative journal emphasizing public health preparedness and disaster response for all health care and public health professionals globally. The journal seeks to translate science into practice and integrate medical and public health perspectives. With the events of September 11, the subsequent anthrax attacks, the tsunami in Indonesia, hurricane Katrina, SARS and the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, all health care and public health professionals must be prepared to respond to emergency situations. In support of these pressing public health needs, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness is committed to the medical and public health communities who are the stewards of the health and security of citizens worldwide.