Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35649524›Full record

ArticleSouthern medical journal2022

Differences in Motivating Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Perceptions of Infection Risk among Healthcare and EMS Personnel in South Carolina.

Mirinda Ann Gormley, Melissa S Nolan, Moonseong Heo, Alain H Litwin, Arnold Alier, Virginie Daguise

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Southern medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mirinda Ann GormleyFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
Melissa S NolanFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
Moonseong HeoFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
Alain H LitwinFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
Arnold AlierFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
Virginie DaguiseFrom the Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences, Clemson, South Carolina, the Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, South Carolina, the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia.
University of South Carolina · US

Funding

ODCDC CDC HHS NU50CK000542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAlthough medical workers were prioritized to receive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, many have declined. Even though studies have investigated differences in COVID-19-related attitudes and vaccination for workers in hospitals and long-term care facilities, none have included emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. We investigated the association between type of medical worker (EMS vs healthcare worker [HCW]) and COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine beliefs, vaccine motivators, personal protection behaviors, and risk perceptions.

methodsThe data for self-identified HCWs came from surveys distributed to randomly selected residents of South Carolina and EMS personnel recruited at a targeted surveillance testing event during the South Carolina EMS Symposium. Pearson χ

resultsOf the 126 respondents 57.9% were EMS, 42.1% were HCWs, and 73.6% of the cohort were self-reported frontline medical workers. Approximately two-thirds of respondents received a vaccine for COVID-19, with no significant differences between EMS and HCWs; however, EMS workers were significantly less likely to receive the vaccination out of concern about exposures at work/school (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.57), concern about exposures within the community (aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.48), or to do their part to control the pandemic (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.69). EMS workers also were significantly less likely to wear a mask all/most of the time when outside the home (aOR 0.04, 95% CI 0.0-0.21) and less concerned about the spread of COVID-19 in their community as compared with HCWs (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56).

conclusionsEMS personnel were significantly less concerned about the spread of COVID-19 in their community and significantly less likely to wear a mask all/most of the time while outside the home as compared with HCWs. Differences in the COVID-19-related attitudes and personal protection behaviors of EMS personnel should be used to develop targeted interventions to increase vaccine motivation and adherence to personal protection protocols.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emergency Medical ServicesInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAttitude of Health PersonnelCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2South CarolinaVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35649524
PMCPMC9154078
OpenAlexW4281723111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.