1
|
Geinitz H, Silberberger E, Spiegl K, Feichtinger J, Wagner H, Hermann P, Bräutigam E, Track C, Weis EM, Venhoda C, Huppert R, Spindelbalker-Renner B, Zauner-Babor G, Nyiri DV, Karasek N, Erdei M, Gheju R, Gruber G, Egger M, Dieplinger B. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral vaccination response in radiation oncology patients. Vaccine 2024; 42:945-959. [PMID: 38246842 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND SARS-CoV-2 infection has been and, in some parts, still is a threat to oncologic patients, making it crucial to understand perception of vaccination and immunologic responses in this vulnerable patient segment. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in relation to malignant disease characteristics and therapies have so far not been studied consecutively in larger oncologic patient populations. This study captures SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral immune response in a large consecutive oncologic patient collective at the beginning of 2021. METHODS 1142 patients were consecutively recruited over 5.5 months at a tertiary department for radiation oncology and were assessed for vaccination willingness via a standardized interview. In already vaccinated patients total SARS-CoV-2 S antibody titres against the spike protein (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and were evaluated 35 days or later after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. RESULTS Vaccination willingness was high with a rate of 90 %. The most frequent reasons for rejection were: undecided/potential vaccination after therapy, distrust in the vaccine and fear of interaction with comorbidities. Factors associated with lower vaccination willingness were: worse general condition, lower age and female sex. 80 % of the participants had been previously vaccinated, 8 % reported previous infection and 16 % received vaccination during antineoplastic therapy. In 97.5 % of the vaccinated patients Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S was detected. In a univariable analysis parameters associated with non-conversion were: lower performance status, spread to the local lymphatics (N + ), hematologic disease and diffuse metastases. All patients with oligometastatic disease achieved positive Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. For patients with two vaccinations several risk factors were identified, that were associated with low antibody concentrations. CONCLUSIONS SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness among oncologic patients was high in the first months after its availability, and most patients had already received one or two doses. Over 97 % of vaccinated patients had measurable anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. Our data supports early identification of low humoral responders after vaccination and could facilitate the design of future oncologic vaccine trials (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04918888).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Geinitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria; Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Medizinische Fakultät, Krankenhausstraße 5, A-4020 Linz, Austria.
| | - Elisabeth Silberberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Kurt Spiegl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Johann Feichtinger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Helga Wagner
- Kompetenzzentrum für Klinische Studien (KKS Linz) am Zentrum für Klinische Forschung (ZKF), Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Medizinische Fakultät, Med Campus I, Gebäude ADM, 8.OG, Krankenhausstraße 5, A-4020 Linz, Austria
| | - Philipp Hermann
- Kompetenzzentrum für Klinische Studien (KKS Linz) am Zentrum für Klinische Forschung (ZKF), Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Medizinische Fakultät, Med Campus I, Gebäude ADM, 8.OG, Krankenhausstraße 5, A-4020 Linz, Austria
| | - Elisabeth Bräutigam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Christine Track
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Eva Maria Weis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Clemens Venhoda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Roswitha Huppert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Barbara Spindelbalker-Renner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Georgine Zauner-Babor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Dalma Viktoria Nyiri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Nicola Karasek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Mercedesz Erdei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Ruben Gheju
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Georg Gruber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010 Linz, Austria
| | - Margot Egger
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brueder Linz and Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Benjamin Dieplinger
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brueder Linz and Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tregnago D, Avancini A, Belluomini L, Trestini I, Sposito M, Insolda J, Bianchi F, Sava T, Gaiani C, Del Piccolo L, Guarnieri V, Verlato G, Tfaily A, Vesentini R, Zuliani S, Pilotto S, Milella M. Cross-sectional survey evaluating the psychological impact of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in patients with cancer: The VACCINATE study. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0290792. [PMID: 38271378 PMCID: PMC10810487 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted on cancer patients' psychological well-being and clinical status. We assessed the levels of anxiety, depression, and distress and the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients, accepting vaccination at the Verona University Hospital and Camposampiero Hospital in the Veneto region. Self-reported questionnaires were administered to patients undergoing COVID-19 vaccination between March and May 2021 (first and second dose). Twenty-seven items were investigated: i) demographics/clinical characteristics; ii) anxiety, depression, and distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-HADS-and Distress Thermometer-DT); iii) four specific items regarding awareness about infection risks, interference with anticancer treatments, and vaccine side effects. Sixty-two and 57% of the patients who accepted to be vaccinated responded to the survey in the two participating Hospitals, respectively. Mean age was 63 years (SD: 12 years; range 19-94 years), women were slightly more prevalent (57.6%), most participants were married (70%), and either worker or retired (60%). Borderline and clinical levels of anxiety were recorded in 14% and 10% of respondents; borderline and clinical levels of depression in 14% and 8%; and moderate and severe distress levels in 33% and 9%. Overall, there was high confidence that vaccination would reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 (70%), which would make patients feel less worried about contracting the infection (60%). Fear that vaccine-related side effects would interfere with anticancer treatment and/or global health status was low (10% and 9% for items 3 and 4, respectively) and significantly associated with baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and distress at multivariate analysis. Results did not differ between the Verona and Camposampiero cohorts. During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, adult cancer patients demonstrated high levels of confidence towards vaccination; baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and distress were the only significant predictors of reduced confidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Tregnago
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Alice Avancini
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Belluomini
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Ilaria Trestini
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Marco Sposito
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Jessica Insolda
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Federica Bianchi
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Teodoro Sava
- Medical Oncology, Camposampiero Hospital, Padova, Italy
| | - Chiara Gaiani
- Medical Oncology, Camposampiero Hospital, Padova, Italy
| | - Lidia Del Piccolo
- Department of Neuroscience, Psychological and Psychiatric Sciences and Movement Sciences, University of Verona and Verona University Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy
| | | | - Giuseppe Verlato
- Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Istituti Biologici II – University of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Ahmad Tfaily
- Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Istituti Biologici II – University of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Roberta Vesentini
- Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Istituti Biologici II – University of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Serena Zuliani
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Sara Pilotto
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| | - Michele Milella
- Section of Innovation Biomedicine - Oncology Area, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona and University and Hospital Trust (AOUI) of Verona, Verona, VR, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gulle BT, Oren MM, Dal T. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Infect 2023; 151:e199. [PMID: 37997650 PMCID: PMC10728987 DOI: 10.1017/s0950268823001875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/25/2023] Open
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Turkey, which can aid future health policies and strategies. A comprehensive search was conducted on various databases using keywords related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies. Data extraction was conducted. The random effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used in pooled prevalence data analysis (95% confidence interval [CI]). A total of 1,072 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and excluding articles, 61 articles remained for bias assessment. Among these, 19 articles with low risk of bias were included in the review and meta-analysis. Total population included in the analysis was 15,164, vaccine hesitancy was 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3-36.8%). Prevalence of the vaccine hesitancy was found to be 39.8% (95% Cl: 31.4-48.2%) in studies conducted before the initiation of vaccination, while in studies conducted after the commencement of vaccination, hesitancy was 20.4% (95% Cl: 12.9-28%). We suggest conducting high-quality studies in different populations to understand the level of vaccine hesitancy, as many of the previous studies have mainly focused on healthcare workers and students, and rest were community-based studies, which have generally shown high bias. Also, we suggest that early vaccination can reduce vaccine hesitancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bugra Taygun Gulle
- Department of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Meryem Merve Oren
- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Tuba Dal
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vaccination status and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in patients undergoing active cancer treatment in a referral center in Mexico: a survey study. Support Care Cancer 2023; 31:209. [PMID: 36913048 PMCID: PMC10009352 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07667-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 vaccination refusal/hesitancy among patients with cancer has been reported to be high. This study aimed to assess vaccination status and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer undergoing active treatment in a single center in Mexico. METHODS A cross-sectional, 26-item survey evaluating vaccination status and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination was conducted among patients undergoing active cancer treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics, vaccination status, and attitudes. X2 tests and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate associations between characteristics and attitudes with adequate vaccination status. RESULTS Of 201 respondents, 95% had received at least one dose, and 67% had adequate COVID-19 vaccination status (≥ 3 doses). Thirty-six percent of patients had at least one reason for doubting/rejecting vaccination, and the main reason was being afraid of side effects. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.77), mass media as main source of information on COVID-19 (OR 2.55), agreeing vaccination against COVID-19 is safe in patients with cancer (OR 3.11), and not being afraid of the composition of the COVID-19 vaccines (OR 5.10) statistically increased the likelihood of adequate vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS Our study shows high vaccination rates and positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, with a significant proportion of patients undergoing active cancer treatment with adequate vaccination status (≥ 3 doses). Older age, use of mass media as main source of COVID-19 information, and positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of adequate COVID-19 vaccination status among patients with cancer.
Collapse
|
5
|
Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Patients with Serious Chronic Illnesses during the Initial Australian Vaccine Rollout: A Multi-Centre Qualitative Analysis Using the Health Belief Model. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:vaccines11020239. [PMID: 36851117 PMCID: PMC9963130 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11020239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2022] [Revised: 01/18/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: People with chronic illnesses have increased morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The influence of a person's serious and/or comorbid chronic illness on COVID-19 vaccine uptake is not well understood. Aim: To undertake an in-depth exploration of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among those with various serious and/or chronic diseases in the Australian context, using secondary data analysis of a survey study. Methods: Adults with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 10 Australian health services to undertake a cross-sectional online survey (30 June to 5 October 2021) about COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine hesitancy, confidence and complacency and disease-related decision-making impact. Free-text responses were invited regarding thoughts and feelings about the interaction between the participant's disease, COVID-19, and vaccination. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken using an iterative process and representative verbatim quotes were chosen to illustrate the themes. Results: Of 4683 survey responses (cancer 3560, diabetes 842, and MS 281), 1604 (34.3%) included free-text comments for qualitative analysis. Participants who provided these were significantly less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccination than those who did not comment (72.4% and 86.2%, respectively). People with diabetes were significantly less likely to provide free-text comments than those with cancer or MS (29.0%, 35.1% and 39.9%, respectively). Four key themes were identified from qualitative analysis, which were similar across disease states: (1) having a chronic disease heightened perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of COVID-19; (2) perceived impact of vaccination on chronic disease management and disease-related safety; (3) uncertain benefits of COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) overwhelming information overload disempowering patients. Conclusions: This qualitative analysis highlights an additional layer of complexity related to COVID-19 vaccination decision making in people with underlying health conditions. Appreciation of higher susceptibility to severe COVID-19 outcomes appears to be weighed against uncertain impacts of the vaccine on the progression and management of the comorbid disease. Interactions by clinicians addressing individual factors may alleviate concerns and maximise vaccine uptake in people with significant underlying health conditions.
Collapse
|
6
|
Cancer Patients and the COVID-19 Vaccines: Considerations and Challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14225630. [PMID: 36428722 PMCID: PMC9688380 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14225630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.
Collapse
|
7
|
Prabani KIP, Weerasekara I, Damayanthi HDWT. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health 2022; 212:66-75. [PMID: 36244261 PMCID: PMC9452406 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2021] [Revised: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 09/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients with cancer are more vulnerable to COVID-19 morbidity and morbidity than the general population and have been prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination programmes. This study aims to investigate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among patients with cancer. STUDY DESIGN This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane COVID-19 study registry were searched in addition to secondary literature using a predefined search method. Two authors independently performed the study identification, screening and eligibility assessment. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and Joanna Brides' Institute quality appraisal tools. RESULTS A total of 29 studies and reports were selected for the final review. The pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance was 59% (95% confidence interval 52-67%, I2: 99%). Concerns about vaccine-related side-effects, uncertainty about vaccine efficacy and safety, ongoing active anticancer therapies and scepticism about rapid vaccine development were the leading causes for vaccine hesitancy. Female gender and undergoing active anticancer treatments were significant factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Early cancer stages (stages I and II) and good compliance with prior influenza vaccinations were significant factors associated with the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSIONS Many patients with cancer are hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination. Well-designed problem-based educational interventions will increase compliance with COVID-19 vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K I P Prabani
- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Centre for Research in Oral Cancer, Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
| | - I Weerasekara
- Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
| | - H D W T Damayanthi
- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lee M, Miao E, Rapkin B, Halmos B, Shankar V, Goel S. Prevalence and Assessment of Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in an Ethnic Minority Oncology Patient Population. Vaccines (Basel) 2022; 10:1711. [PMID: 36298576 PMCID: PMC9611923 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10101711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2022] [Revised: 09/23/2022] [Accepted: 10/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complicating the COVID-19 pandemic are the healthcare disparities experienced by ethnic minorities, especially those with comorbidities including cancer. The introduction of COVID-19 vaccines has been instrumental in blunting the morbidity and mortality from the pandemic; however, vaccine hesitancy, particularly among ethnic minorities, has been a major concern. Thus, we sought to evaluate the knowledge and perspectives of COVID-19 and vaccines among our ethnic minority cancer patient population. METHODS Following an IRB approved protocol, questionnaires were completed by patients in a predominantly ethnic minority population at a single institution between 1 February and 30 June 2021. Included were any adult cancer patients with either a solid or hematologic malignancy. RESULTS Among the 84 patients that were offered the questionnaires, 52 patients responded, with a median age of 63.5 years. Overall, 36% were non-Hispanic Blacks and 30% were Hispanics; 65% were receiving active treatment for their cancer. Seventy-nine percent believed COVID-19 to be dangerous or harmful to them, 61% were concerned about the side effects, yet 65% considered COVID-19 vaccines as safe. Among the seven patients that refused the vaccine, (71%, n = 5) cited side effects and/or (57%, n = 4) believed that the vaccine was not needed. Overall, there was a significantly higher chance of being vaccinated if patients were receiving active cancer treatment, believed COVID-19 was harmful, or that the vaccine was safe, and knew COVID-19 was a virus. CONCLUSIONS This exploratory study demonstrates that most ethnic minority cancer patients are receptive to vaccines, with a majority being vaccinated. However, we also discovered various reasons why this group of patients may not want be vaccinated, including concerns about side effects and perception that COVID-19 is not harmful. These findings can help us further understand the complex nature of vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minority cancer patients, and aid in developing future vaccine awareness strategies as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Lee
- Department of Oncology, Montefiore Einstein Cancer Center (MECC), Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Emily Miao
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Bruce Rapkin
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Balazs Halmos
- Department of Oncology, Montefiore Einstein Cancer Center (MECC), Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Viswanathan Shankar
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Sanjay Goel
- Department of Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Souan L, Sughayer MA, Abu Alhowr M, Ammar K, Bader SA. An update on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic public awareness on cancer patients' COVID-19 vaccine compliance: Outcomes and recommendations. Front Public Health 2022; 10:923815. [PMID: 35937267 PMCID: PMC9354075 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.923815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Aside from the pandemic's negative health effects, the world was confronted with public confusion since proper communication and favorable decisions became an ongoing challenge. As a result, the public's perceptions were influenced by what they knew, the many sources of COVID-19 information, and how they interpreted it. With cancer patients continuing to oppose COVID-19 vaccines, we sought to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine sources of this information in adult cancer patients, which either helped or prevented them from taking the vaccine. We also assessed the relevance and impact of their oncologists' recommendations in encouraging them to take the vaccine. Methods From June to October 2021, an online survey was conducted at King Hussein Cancer Center. A total of 441 adult cancer patients took part in the study. Patients who had granted their consent were requested to complete an online questionnaire, which was collected using the SurveyMonkey questionnaire online platform. Descriptive analysis was done for all variables. The association between categorical and continuous variables was assessed using the Pearson Chi-square and Fisher Exact. Results Our results showed that 75% of the patients registered for the COVID-19 vaccine, while 12% refused vaccination. The majority of participants acquired their information from news and television shows, whereas (138/441) got their information through World Health Organization websites. Because the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were made in such a short period, 54.7 % assumed the vaccines were unsafe. Only 49% of the patients said their oncologists had informed them about the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Conclusions We found that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in cancer patients might be related to misinformation obtained from social media despite the availability of supportive scientific information on the vaccine's benefits from the physicians. To combat misleading and unreliable social media news, we recommend that physicians use telehealth technology to reach out to their patients in addition to their face-to-face consultation, which delivers comprehensive, clear, and high-quality digital services that guide and help patients to better understand the advantages of COVID-19 vaccines.
Collapse
|