Caroline C Liu, Julio A Siliezar, Omar Alzayat, Carly A Robinson, Timothy Do, Adrianna I J Carter, Christine N Pons, Om Patel, Michael S Wilkes
{"title":"在免费诊所接受治疗的无保险人群的疫苗信仰。","authors":"Caroline C Liu, Julio A Siliezar, Omar Alzayat, Carly A Robinson, Timothy Do, Adrianna I J Carter, Christine N Pons, Om Patel, Michael S Wilkes","doi":"10.1007/s10900-024-01416-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misinformation and vaccination hesitancy contribute to disparities in vaccination rates, particularly in under-resourced communities. This study aims to investigate perceptions and factors influencing vaccination decisions at free clinics serving diverse, under-resourced communities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surveys were conducted across eight free clinics in the Greater Sacramento area, targeting uninsured or underinsured individuals. Information on demographics, sources of vaccine information, access to vaccines, vaccine perceptions, and vaccination decisions as pertaining to influenza and COVID-19 were collected on Qualtrics software. Chi-square and t-tests were used to analyze associations between demographics and vaccination rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 109 participants (24-82 years old), vaccination rates were found to be higher than the county average, with notable demographic variations. Contrary to initial hypotheses, men had higher vaccination rates than women, and recent immigrants exhibited higher vaccination rates than more long-term U.S. residents. A higher number of participants regarded the COVID-19 vaccine as effective than as safe, while the reverse was true for the influenza vaccine. Healthcare providers were the most trusted and influential sources for vaccine information, followed by government agencies, and then family and friends. Answers to hypothetical vaccine scenarios elicited assessments on risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study provides insight into the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy and factors that play into the decision-making process in under-resourced communities, underscoring the role of trust in healthcare providers. These findings are vital for tailoring community outreach strategies to create trust, address barriers, and enhance vaccine uptake within free community clinics.</p>","PeriodicalId":15550,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccine Beliefs Among Uninsured People Receiving Care at Free Clinics.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline C Liu, Julio A Siliezar, Omar Alzayat, Carly A Robinson, Timothy Do, Adrianna I J Carter, Christine N Pons, Om Patel, Michael S Wilkes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10900-024-01416-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misinformation and vaccination hesitancy contribute to disparities in vaccination rates, particularly in under-resourced communities. This study aims to investigate perceptions and factors influencing vaccination decisions at free clinics serving diverse, under-resourced communities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surveys were conducted across eight free clinics in the Greater Sacramento area, targeting uninsured or underinsured individuals. Information on demographics, sources of vaccine information, access to vaccines, vaccine perceptions, and vaccination decisions as pertaining to influenza and COVID-19 were collected on Qualtrics software. Chi-square and t-tests were used to analyze associations between demographics and vaccination rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 109 participants (24-82 years old), vaccination rates were found to be higher than the county average, with notable demographic variations. Contrary to initial hypotheses, men had higher vaccination rates than women, and recent immigrants exhibited higher vaccination rates than more long-term U.S. residents. A higher number of participants regarded the COVID-19 vaccine as effective than as safe, while the reverse was true for the influenza vaccine. Healthcare providers were the most trusted and influential sources for vaccine information, followed by government agencies, and then family and friends. Answers to hypothetical vaccine scenarios elicited assessments on risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study provides insight into the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy and factors that play into the decision-making process in under-resourced communities, underscoring the role of trust in healthcare providers. These findings are vital for tailoring community outreach strategies to create trust, address barriers, and enhance vaccine uptake within free community clinics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15550,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Community Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Community Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-024-01416-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-024-01416-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vaccine Beliefs Among Uninsured People Receiving Care at Free Clinics.
Background: Misinformation and vaccination hesitancy contribute to disparities in vaccination rates, particularly in under-resourced communities. This study aims to investigate perceptions and factors influencing vaccination decisions at free clinics serving diverse, under-resourced communities.
Methods: Surveys were conducted across eight free clinics in the Greater Sacramento area, targeting uninsured or underinsured individuals. Information on demographics, sources of vaccine information, access to vaccines, vaccine perceptions, and vaccination decisions as pertaining to influenza and COVID-19 were collected on Qualtrics software. Chi-square and t-tests were used to analyze associations between demographics and vaccination rates.
Results: Among 109 participants (24-82 years old), vaccination rates were found to be higher than the county average, with notable demographic variations. Contrary to initial hypotheses, men had higher vaccination rates than women, and recent immigrants exhibited higher vaccination rates than more long-term U.S. residents. A higher number of participants regarded the COVID-19 vaccine as effective than as safe, while the reverse was true for the influenza vaccine. Healthcare providers were the most trusted and influential sources for vaccine information, followed by government agencies, and then family and friends. Answers to hypothetical vaccine scenarios elicited assessments on risks and benefits.
Conclusion: The study provides insight into the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy and factors that play into the decision-making process in under-resourced communities, underscoring the role of trust in healthcare providers. These findings are vital for tailoring community outreach strategies to create trust, address barriers, and enhance vaccine uptake within free community clinics.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Community Health is a peer-reviewed publication that offers original articles on research, teaching, and the practice of community health and public health. Coverage includes public health, epidemiology, preventive medicine, health promotion, disease prevention, environmental and occupational health, health policy and management, and health disparities. The Journal does not publish articles on clinical medicine. Serving as a forum for the exchange of ideas, the Journal features articles on research that serve the educational needs of public and community health personnel.