A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Community Perceptions of Flu and COVID-19 Vaccines at Turtle Creek Primary Care Center

  1. Anjana Murali
  2. Jorna Sojati
  3. Marina Levochkina
  4. Catherine Pressimone
  5. Kobi Griffith
  6. Erica Fan
  7. Allie Dakroub

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Influenza (flu) and COVID-19 vaccination rates are subpar across the US, especially in racial and/or socioeconomic minority groups who are understudied in public health literature.

Objective

The objective of this mixed-methods study was to elucidate attitudes of patients at the Turtle Creek Primary Care Center, a clinic that cares for ∼70% non-white patients, towards flu and COVID-19 vaccines, with the goal of establishing vaccine education gaps and increasing vaccine uptake in minority communities.

Design/Patients

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional analysis. Authors completed 123 patient phone surveys of patients cared for at the Turtle Creek clinic inquiring about flu and COVID-19 infection status and vaccination uptake (August 26–October 10, 2021).

Approach/Key Results

We found that rates of vaccination were subpar in the Turtle Creek community, with only 54% having received the COVID-19 vaccine and only 44% receiving the flu vaccine regularly. There was a strong association between COVID-19 and flu vaccine acceptance and a notable correlation between vaccine acceptance and age. When assessing how vaccine acceptance was influenced by trusted sources of information, those who cited trusting “medical professionals” and “word of mouth” had higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance but those who cited trusting “social media” had decreased odds of acceptance. Finally, we uncovered 14 common factors for either vaccine acceptance or refusal that clustered into four overarching themes of trust, need, safety, and availability.

Conclusion

These data highlight the necessity of improved vaccine education and reveal targetable populations and approaches for disseminating vaccine information.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/2752535x231205665
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1582405/v1 on Research Square
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.15.22273479: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Study Design and Cohort Description: The study design and survey were given approval by the Quality Improvement Review Committee at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).
    Sex as a biological variableGender was dichotomized as 1) Female, and 2) Not Female.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations included a small sample size, the inability to directly assess 2021 flu season vaccination rates in our time frame, and the focused study of adult patients of an ambulatory practice (excluding pediatric populations and adult patients who receive healthcare in facilities from our assessment). Our study’s cross-sectional nature also contains the inherent limitation of demonstrating only disease association and not causation. Importantly, our study elucidated clear differences in COVID-19 and flu vaccination trends and sociodemographic makeup between the Turtle Creek clinic and existing studies conducted in nearby PA counties, PA state data, or U.S. population studies, highlighting the inability to base vaccine policies on generalized national assessments and the importance of collecting more geographically detailed vaccine data that includes information on diverse populations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.15.22273479v1 on medRxiv