Conectar
To investigate whether chronic diseases are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and explore factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in patients with chronic diseases.
Vaccine hesitancy has been acknowledged as one of the greatest hazards to public health. However, little information is available about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases who may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe disease or death.
From 6 to 9 August 2021, we performed an internet-based cross-sectional survey with 22,954 participants (14.78% participants with chronic diseases). Propensity score matching with 1:1 nearest neighbourhood was used to reduce confounding factors between patients with chronic diseases and the general population. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, the factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified among patients with chronic diseases.
Both before and after propensity score matching, patients with chronic diseases had higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than the general population. In addition, self-reported poor health, multiple chronic diseases, lower sociodemographic backgrounds and lower trust in nurses and doctors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases.
Patients with chronic diseases were more hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. Nurses should focus on patients with chronic diseases with poor health conditions, low socioeconomic backgrounds and low trust in the healthcare system.
Clinical nurses are recommended to not only pay more attention to the health status and sociodemographic characteristics of patients with chronic diseases but also build trust between nurses and patients by improving service levels and professional capabilities in clinical practice.
Patients or the public were not involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, or the design or implementation of the study. However, all participants were invited to complete the digital informed consent and questionnaires.
Operative therapy for superficial esophagus carcinoma is the main way to treat the disease. Endoscopic excision of lesions in the esophagus has become an alternative to surgical treatment for patients with esophageal carcinoma. To overcome the disadvantages of endoscope mucosa excision (EMR), an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique has been developed. Although ESD is one of the most effective methods of endoscopy in patients with digestive tract tumors, there are potential complications after surgery, including hemorrhage in the surgical area and stenosis of the esophagus. The objective of this study was to evaluate EMR versus ESD based on post-operative hemorrhage and esophagus stenosis. All the related articles were retrieved from the e-databases. The main results were postoperative perforation, hemorrhage, and stenosis after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound hemorrhage (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.36–3.29 p = 0.89). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of perforation after surgery (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.17–1.95 p = 0.37). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of esophageal stricture after surgery (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26–5.15 p = 0.85). This analysis was different from the earlier meta-analysis because ESD and EMR did not show any notable differences with respect to the incidence of perforation after surgery, the hemorrhage of the wound or the stenosis of the esophagus. These findings must, however, be supported by more high-quality studies.
FreshRSS 