Search

Older adults are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of infectious diseases than younger individuals. However, regardless of the importance and effectiveness of vaccines to reduce morbidity and mortality, issues remain with vaccine hesitancy among this population. Older adults' sources of immunization information and their level of trust in those sources may play a role in their vaccination behaviors. This research aimed to better understand the role of information sources and related issues of trust as related to vaccine uptake among older adults. A community-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted with 901 older adults in North Dakota in May-July 2022. Measures included extent of reliance on specific sources of immunization information, levels of trust, and uptake for influenza, pneumonia, shingles, and COVID-19 vaccinations. Immunization information sources were grouped into medical experts, informal, and public outlets. Results indicated older adults were more likely to rely on medical experts than informal sources or public outlets for immunization information. Greater reliance on medical experts was associated with a greater likelihood of vaccine uptake for all vaccines, while reliance on public outlets was associated with a greater likelihood of vaccine uptake only for COVID primary series and boosters. Reliance on informal sources for immunization information was associated with a reduced likelihood of vaccine uptake for all vaccines except shingles. Nearly half of respondents were uncertain who to trust for vaccine information. Uncertainty who to trust for immunization information significantly mediated the associations between reliance on medical experts and uptake for most vaccines indicating that trust in medical experts fosters vaccine uptake. Increasing reliance on medical experts as sources of immunization information is vital to increasing vaccine uptake among older adults. Additionally, this population must be assisted in increasing their ability to successfully assess the trustworthiness of immunization information sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 surveillance across the United States is essential to tracking and mitigating the pandemic, but data representing cases and deaths may be impacted by attribute, spatial, and temporal uncertainties. COVID-19 case and death data are essential to understanding the pandemic and serve as key inputs for prediction models that inform policy-decisions; consistent information across datasets is critical to ensuring coherent findings. We implement an exploratory data analytic approach to characterize, synthesize, and visualize spatial-temporal dimensions of uncertainty across commonly used datasets for case and death metrics (Johns Hopkins University, the New York Times, USAFacts, and 1Point3Acres). We scrutinize data consistency to assess where and when disagreements occur, potentially indicating underlying uncertainty. We observe differences in cumulative case and death rates to highlight discrepancies and identify spatial patterns. Data are assessed using pairwise agreement (Cohen's kappa) and agreement across all datasets (Fleiss' kappa) to summarize changes over time. Findings suggest highest agreements between CDC, JHU, and NYT datasets. We find nine discrete type-components of information uncertainty for COVID-19 datasets reflecting various complex processes. Understanding processes and indicators of uncertainty in COVID-19 data reporting is especially relevant to public health professionals and policymakers to accurately understand and communicate information about the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]