ArticleHeliyon2024
Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination among urogynecology patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Urogynecology patients skew older and often require intimate exams to treat non-life-threatening conditions, thus making care particularly susceptible to the effects of COVID-19. We aim to understand COVID-19 vaccination attitudes amongst urogynecology patients during the pandemic, which has adversely affected healthcare delivery, to identify measures that can be undertaken to improve care going forward. Study design: Cross-sectional surveys of urogynecology patients were conducted in three different states (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) between March and August 2021. Demographics, vaccination status, and COVID-19 attitudes were analyzed. Chi-square tests investigated group differences between vaccine-hesitant and unhesitant subjects. Results: Out of 158 surveys, eighty-three percent of respondents were vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated. Older age and regular flu vaccination predicted COVID-19 vaccination. Ninety-three percent of subjects were comfortable attending in-person visits. However, vaccine-hesitant individuals were less comfortable attending in-person and were significantly less likely to be comforted by clinic interventions, such as masking. Hesitant and unhesitant groups trusted doctors or medical professionals most for their source of COVID-19 information. Conclusions: Urogynecology patients mirror the general older population's COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, with distinct differences between hesitant and unhesitant groups. Vaccine-hesitant subjects appear less comfortable coming to in-person visits and less comforted by possible interventions, posing a difficult obstacle for clinics to overcome. High levels of patient trust suggest healthcare providers can play a crucial role in encouraging COVID-19 vaccination and combating misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.