(1) Background: This study aims to delineate a pattern on vaccine hesitancy in a sample of the Spanish population, considering age groups and status as healthcare workers. (2) Methods: Participants were recruited using Twitter® as a dissemination tool to reach as many respondents as possible in different parts of the Spanish territory. The participants were recruited in a cross-sectional study, which included answering an online questionnaire. Data were collected from 10 September through 23 November 2020. Respondents answered questions asking whether they intended to be vaccinated and provided the main reason for their answers. To estimate associations between vaccination hesitancy and independent variables, we fit Poisson regression models with robust variance. (3) Results: One thousand and two responses were obtained, of which only 731 were validated. One hundred and sixty-four participants stated that they would not be vaccinated (22.43%), of which 20–24% were non-health workers or unemployed, 17.5% physicians, 31.5% other health workers, and almost 35% nurses. Concerns about lack of effectiveness of the vaccination, lack of safety when vaccinating and possibly dangerous adverse effects were the main causes provided. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that more interventions are needed to achieve better communication with the population and health professionals. Receptiveness to the message of the importance and security of the COVID-19 vaccination could be an important strategy for improving these results.
(1) Background: The aim of this study is to provide a better understanding of the requirements to improve routine health information systems (RHISs) for the management of health systems, including the identification of best practices, opportunities, and challenges in the 53 countries and territories of the WHO European region. (2) Methods: We conducted an overview of systematics reviews and searched the literature in the databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science electronic databases. After a meticulous screening, we identified 20 that met the inclusion criteria, and RHIS evaluation results were presented according to the Performance of Routine Information System Management (PRISM) framework. (3) Results: The reviews were published between 2007 and 2020, focusing on the use of different systems or technologies and aimed to analyze interventions on professionals, centers, or patients’ outcomes. All reviews examined showed variability in results in accordance with the variability of interventions and target populations. We have found different areas for improvement for RHISs according to the three determinants of the PRISM framework that influence the configuration of RHISs: technical, organizational, or behavioral elements. (4) Conclusions: RHIS interventions in the European region are promising. However, new global and international strategies and the development of tools and mechanisms should be promoted to highly integrate platforms among European countries.
Background: In order to prevent spread and improve control of infectious diseases, public health experts need to closely monitor human and animal populations. Infectious disease surveillance is an established, routine data collection process essential for early warning, rapid response, and disease control. The quantity of data potentially useful for early warning and surveillance has increased exponentially due to social media and other big data streams. Digital epidemiology is a novel discipline that includes harvesting, analysing, and interpreting data that were not initially collected for healthcare needs to enhance traditional surveillance. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of digital epidemiology complementing traditional public health approaches has been highlighted.Objective: The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview for the application of data and digital solutions to support surveillance strategies and draw implications for surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed databases. Articles published between January 2005 and May 2020 on the use of digital solutions to support surveillance strategies in pandemic settings and health emergencies were evaluated.Results: In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of digital epidemiology, available data sources, and components of 21st-century digital surveillance, early warning and response, outbreak management and control, and digital interventions.Conclusions: Our main purpose was to highlight the plausible use of new surveillance strategies, with implications for the COVID-19 pandemic strategies and then to identify opportunities and challenges for the successful development and implementation of digital solutions during non-emergency times of routine surveillance, with readiness for early-warning and response for future pandemics. The enhancement of traditional surveillance systems with novel digital surveillance methods opens a direction for the most effective framework for preparedness and response to future pandemics.
Con la pandemia actual, se ha abierto la posibilidad de uso de herramientas tecnológicas como la teleconsulta o consulta no presencial. En zonas rurales o incluso en zonas semi urbanas, el acceso a servicios médicos puede verse restringido debido a problemas de transporte; en otros lugares el acceso a las consultas se ve limitado para evitar el contagio del paciente o del personal sanitario. Es por esto que se utilizan soluciones tecnológicas que nos permitan controlar a nuestros pacientes a distancia, especialmente en el caso de pacientes crónicos o como una forma de triaje a posibles pacientes con coronavirus. Lamentablemente este tipo de sistema no se ha utilizado con la misma continuidad que en otros países y muchas veces nuestro personal sanitario desconoce la manera correcta de realizar una teleconsulta (por teléfono o video). Con este documento queremos ayudar a orientar de manera inicial como efectuar una teleconsulta en Atención Primaria.
Background This study attempts to provide a picture of the hesitancy to vaccination against COVID-19 in Spain during the 2021 spring-autumn vaccination campaign, both in the general population and in healthcare professionals. Methods The participants were recruited using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, in addition to the cooperation of health personnel contacted with the collaboration of medical scientific societies. A cross-sectional study was carried out that included the response of an online questionnaire. The data were collected from April 30 to September 26, 2021. To assess the different associations between variables to be measured, we fit Poisson regression models with robust variance. Results Responses were obtained from 3,850 adults from the general population group and 502 health professionals. Of the overall sample, 48.6% of participants from the general population were vaccinated against COVID-19, whereas in the healthcare professionals, 94.8% were vaccinated. The prevalence of general population vaccination increased with age, and was higher in women than men. Most participants did not show a preference for any vaccine itself. However, the prevalence of people vaccinated with their preferred vaccine was higher for the ones vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine. 6.5% of the general population reported being reticent to be vaccinated. People from younger age groups, people with lower educational levels and those who were not from a risk group showed greater reluctance to be vaccinated. No gender differences in reluctancy were found. Conclusions Health professionals were significantly less likely to refuse vaccination even though they had more doubts about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. On the other hand, younger people, those with a lower level of education and those who were not from a risk group were the most hesitant.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.