Understanding factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among health care workers using the Diffusion of Innovation Theory - 20/04/24
Résumé |
Background |
The COVID-19 vaccine was initially offered to frontline health care workers (HCWs), due to the high risk of contracting COVID-19 through occupational exposure to patients. Low HCW vaccine uptake can impact overall community-level vaccine uptake. This study used the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory to understand factors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in HCWs.
Methods |
We surveyed Pennsylvanian HCWs (excluding Philadelphia) from August 2022 to February 2023. Survey questions inquired about demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, reasons for receiving/declining the COVID-19 vaccine, and sources of information about the vaccine.
Results |
Participants (n = 3,490) were 85% female, 89% White, and 93% (n = 3,255) reported receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. HCWs were categorized into adopter categories of the DOI Theory: innovators (56%), early adopters (9%), early majority (11%), late majority (7%), and laggards (17%). The major reason that prompted participants to get the vaccine was to protect them against COVID-19 infection (78%), while the major reason for declining the vaccine was due to concern about possible side effects from the vaccine (78%).
Conclusions |
We applied the DOI Theory to characterize adopters and identify factors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in HCWs. As updated COVID-19 vaccines are approved for the United States market, our findings may be used to improve vaccine education and communication among HCWs to support vaccine uptake.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | The Diffusion of Innovation Theory was used to characterize COVID-19 vaccine uptake. |
• | Most health care workers were categorized as innovators and early adopters. |
• | Factors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake vary by category of adoption. |
Key Words : Innovators, Early adopters, Vaccine refusal, Pennsylvania
Plan
Conflicts of interest: Gail C. D’Souza: None. Casey N. Pinto: Funding for this project from Commonwealth of PA. Previous consulting work with Roche and BD, and support for attending meetings from American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. Cara L. Exten: Funding for this project from Pennsylvania Department of Health: Frontline HCW. Jessica M. Yingst: None. Jonathan Foulds: I have funding from numerous NIH grants, unrelated to this project. (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] and NCI. I consulted Johnson & Johnson within the past 3 years, on clinical trial design, unrelated to the current paper. I received payment for providing lectures on Smoking Cessation from the University of Florida, unrelated to the present work. I received support for attending meetings as part of my NIH grant funding, unrelated to the present paper. I used my NIH grant funding to purchase products for use in clinical trials (eg, electronic cigarettes), unrelated to the current study. Jocelyn Anderson: Grant from the Pennsylvanian Department of Health (Awarded to PIs Pinto and Exten). Rachel Allen: Funding for this project from Pennsylvania Department of Health: Frontline HCW. William A. Calo: I have funding from the National Cancer Institute—grants R37CA253279, P01CA250989, R01CA254659 and R01CA268017. I also received funding from CDC—grant 6NU58DP006587–01, and Pennsylvania Immunization Coalition—no grant number. I received a one-time payment from Roche for a lecture offered in 2022. I serve as a co-leader, for the Pennsylvania HPV Vaccination Workgroup. |
|
Funding/support: This work was supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (OSP No. 221950). |
Vol 52 - N° 5
P. 509-516 - mai 2024 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.