Search

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. RESULTS: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19-95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

Purpose: Evaluate efficiency, precision, and validity of RetCAT, which comprises ten diabetic retinopathy (DR) quality of life (QoL) computerized adaptive tests (CATs). Methods: In this cross-sectional clinical study, 183 English and/or Mandarin-speaking participants with DR (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 56.4 ± 11.9 years; 38% proliferative DR [worse eye]) were recruited from retinal clinics in Singapore. Participants answered the RetCAT tests (Symptoms, Activity Limitation, Mobility, Emotional, Health Concerns, Social, Convenience, Economic, Driving, and Lighting), which were capped at seven items each, and other questionnaires, and underwent eye tests. Our primary evaluation focused on RetCAT efficiency (i.e. standard error of measurement [SEM] ± SD achieved and time needed to complete each CAT). Secondary evaluations included an assessment of RetCAT's test precision and validity Results: Mean SEM across all RetCAT tests was 0.351, ranging from 0.272 ± 0.130 for Economic to 0.484 ± 0.130 for Emotional. Four tests (Mobility, Social, Convenience, and Driving) had a high level of measurement error. The median time to take each RetCAT test was 1.79 minutes, ranging from 1.12 (IQR [interquartile range] 1.63) for Driving to 3.28 (IQR 2.52) for Activity Limitation. Test precision was highest for participants at the most impaired end of the spectrum. Most RetCAT tests displayed expected correlations with other scales (convergent/divergent validity) and were sensitive to DR and/or vision impairment severity levels (criterion validity) Conclusions: RetCAT can provide efficient, precise, and valid measurement of DR-related QoL impact. Future application of RetCAT will employ a stopping rule based on SE rather than number of items to ensure that all tests can detect meaningful differences in person abilities. Responsiveness of RetCAT to treatment interventions must also be determined Translational Relevance: RetCAT may be useful for measuring the patient-centered impact of DR severity and disease progression and evaluating the effectiveness of new therapies Refereed/Peer-reviewed