Vaccination roll-out: a time to develop and maintain trust in science and health care
| Autor: | Orla T. Muldoon, Daragh Bradshaw, Robert P Murphy, Carol Taaffe, Patrick O'Donnell, Elaine Louise Kinsella, Sarah Jay, Paul J. Maher |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Health Knowledge
Attitudes Practice business.industry media_common.quotation_subject Vaccination MEDLINE Disease Patient Acceptance of Health Care Trust Herd immunity Environmental health Health care Pandemic Humans Medicine Quality (business) Family Practice Empirical evidence business Delivery of Health Care Analysis media_common |
| Zdroj: | The British Journal of General Practice |
| ISSN: | 1478-5242 0960-1643 |
| DOI: | 10.3399/bjgp21x717629 |
| Popis: | Many countries are facing a new phase of the pandemic where COVID-19 vaccine roll-out and uptake takes centre stage. Vaccine hesitancy poses a real challenge in pursuit of this goal. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health.1 The need to understand and support uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations is now imperative. To achieve herd immunity, the virus transmission rate, R, and the performance of the vaccine must be taken into account.2 Given higher transmissibility of new variants, and an optimistic estimate of efficacy of .80, reducing the risk of vaccine recipients getting the disease by 80%, herd immunity may require entire populations to be immunised.2,3 Reflecting the WHO’s concern,1 a recently published concise review4 highlighted that there is significant disparity in uptake rates across countries. Historically, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries are those with the poorest vaccine uptake. Here we outline the latest empirical evidence on important individual- and group-level factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and include specific evidence-based recommendations for GPs facilitating vaccination roll-out. Studies of adults’ vaccination intentions in OECD countries were systematically reviewed.5 Of the 31 eligible studies, eight (26%) were rated as high quality, 13 (42%) were rated as good quality, and 11 (35%) were rated as satisfactory. None of the studies were excluded from the review as the appraisal process evaluates reporting rather than conduct and content, which usefully informs findings and discussion.6 We looked at all quantitative surveys of nationally representative samples published in the 19 months to the end of July 2021 that asked responders about their planned vaccine … |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|