Impact of DHCWs' Safety Perception on Vaccine Acceptance and Adoption of Risk Mitigation Strategies

被引:5
|
作者
Coker, M. O. [1 ,2 ]
Subramanian, G. [1 ]
Davidow, A. [2 ]
Fredericks-Younger, J. [1 ]
Gennaro, M. L. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Fine, D. H. [1 ]
Feldman, C. A. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Rutgers Sch Dent Med, 110 Bergen St, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Rutgers Sch Publ Hlth, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
[3] Rutgers State Univ, Publ Hlth Res Inst, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
[4] Rutgers State Univ, New Jersey Med Sch, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
关键词
COVID-19; dental offices; safety; infection control; vaccination hesitancy; Personal Protective Equipment; HEPATITIS-B VACCINE; UNITED-STATES; COVID-19; VACCINE; PREVALENCE; INFECTION;
D O I
10.1177/23800844211071111
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: To estimate the association between safety perception on vaccine acceptance and adoptions of risk mitigation strategies among dental health care workers (DHCWs). Methods: A survey was emailed to DHCWs in the NewJersey area from December 2020 to January 2021. Perceived safety from regular SARS . CoV-2 testing of self,' coworkers, and patients and its association with vaccine hesitancy and risk mitigation were ascertained. Risk Mitigation Strategy (RIMS) scorns were computed from groupings of office measures: 1) physical distancing (reduced occupancy, traffic flow, donning of masks, minimal room crowding), 2) personal protective equipment (fitted for N95; donning N95 masks; use of face shields; coverings for head, body, and feet), and 3) environmental disinfection (suction, air filtration, ultraviolet, surface wiping). Results: SARS-00V-2 testing of dental professionals, coworkers, and patients were perceived to provide safety at 49%,55%, and 68%, respectively. While dentists were least likely to feel safe with regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 (P < 0.001) as compared with hygienists and assistants, they were more willing than hygienists (P = 0.004; odds ratio, 1.79 [95% Cl, 1.21 to 2.66]) and assistants (P < 0.001; odds ratio, 3.32 [95% CI, 1.93 to 5.711) to receive the vaccine. RIMS scores ranged from 0 to 19for 467 participants (mean [SD], 10.9 [2.91). RIMS scores did not significantly differ among groups of DHCWs; however, mean RIMS scores were higher among those who received or planned to receive the COVID-19 vaccine than those with who did not (P = 0.004). DHCWs who felt safer with regular testing had greater RIMS scores than those who did not (11.0 vs. 10.3, P = 0.01). Conclusions: Understanding IVICWs' perception of risk and safety is crucial, as it likely influences attitudes toward testing and implementation of office risk mitigation policies. Clinical studies that correlate risk perception and RIMS with SARS-CoV-2 testing are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of RiMS in dental care settings. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Educators, clinicians, and policy makers can use the results of this study when improving attitudes toward testing and implementation of risk mitigation policies within dental offices, for current and future pandemics.
引用
收藏
页码:188 / 197
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Airborne Disease Transmission Risk and Energy Impact of HVAC Mitigation Strategies
    Risbeck, Michael j.
    Bazant, Martin z.
    Jiang, Zhanhong
    Lee, Young m.
    Drees, Kirk h.
    Douglas, Jonathan d.
    ASHRAE JOURNAL, 2022, 64
  • [22] Estimated levels of safety for small unmanned aerial vehicles and risk mitigation strategies
    Stevenson, Jonathan D.
    O'Young, Siu
    Rolland, Luc
    JOURNAL OF UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS, 2015, 3 (04) : 205 - 221
  • [23] EARTHQUAKE RISK MITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF SEISMIC RETROFITTING STRATEGIES ON URBAN RESILIENCE
    Ferreira, Tiago Miguel
    Maio, Rui
    Vicente, Romeu
    Costa, Anibal
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 2016, 20 (03) : 291 - 304
  • [24] Assuring Safety of Inherently Unsafe Medications: the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies
    Nelson, Lewis S.
    Loh, Meredith
    Perrone, Jeanmarie
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2014, 10 (02) : 165 - 172
  • [25] Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies
    Marshall, Tracy M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2020, 47
  • [26] Evaluating the Impact of Hazard Information on Fieldworkers' Safety Risk Perception
    Ibrahim, Abdullahi
    Nnaji, Chukwuma
    Namian, Mostafa
    Shakouri, Mahmoud
    JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 2024, 150 (03)
  • [27] The Psychological Impact of the SARS Epidemic on Hospital Employees in China: Exposure, Risk Perception, and Altruistic Acceptance of Risk
    Wu, Ping
    Fang, Yunyun
    Guan, Zhiqiang
    Fan, Bin
    Kong, Junhui
    Yao, Zhongling
    Liu, Xinhua
    Fuller, Cordelia J.
    Susser, Ezra
    Lu, Jin
    Hoven, Christina W.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PSYCHIATRIE, 2009, 54 (05): : 302 - 311
  • [28] Farm households? flood risk perception and adoption of flood disaster adaptation strategies in northern Ghana
    Ntim-Amo, Gideon
    Yin, Qi
    Ankrah, Ernest Kwarko
    Liu, Yunqiang
    Twumasi, Martinson Ankrah
    Agbenyo, Wonder
    Xu, Dingde
    Ansah, Stephen
    Mazhar, Rabia
    Gamboc, Vivian Kimayong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2022, 80
  • [29] Dimensions of Vaccination Attitudes in Nigeria: A Study of the Impacts of COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Perception and Acceptance
    Lawal, Abiodun Musbau
    Olawa, Babatola Dominic
    Odoh, Ikenna Maximillian
    Olawole, Ayodeji Olorunfemi
    Ajayi, Olubukola
    Azikiwe, Judith Chineye
    Ayodele, Israel Oluwatosin
    Odusina, Emmanuel Kolawole
    Attah, Thomas
    Odedokun, Ezekiel Adeyemi
    Babatunde, Stephen Ishola
    Oladejo, Teslim Alabi
    Otoghile, Confidence Chioma
    Saka, Saheed Abiola
    KESMAS-NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH JOURNAL, 2023, 18 (02): : 89 - 96
  • [30] The Impact of Trust and Risk Perception on the Acceptance of Measures to Reduce COVID-19 Cases
    Siegrist, Michael
    Luchsinger, Larissa
    Bearth, Angela
    RISK ANALYSIS, 2021, 41 (05) : 787 - 800