4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Descriptive Evaluation of Health Literacy and Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Patients with IgA Nephropathy with High Vaccine Uptake

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          Shared decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccination in IgA nephropathy involves the ability to handle health information regarding potential benefits and risk of flare, but few studies have evaluated health literacy in the context of vaccination. We aimed to evaluate the health literacy and COVID-19 vaccination uptake and acceptance in IgA nephropathy.

          Methods

          Single-center cross-sectional study of 126 consecutive patients with IgA nephropathy. Health literacy was assessed using the HLS-EU-47 questionnaire. Determinants of vaccine acceptance such as contextual influences, individual and group influences, and vaccine-specific issues were adapted from the World Health Organization framework.

          Results

          Forty-eight patients (38.1%) with IgAN nephropathy completed the survey between June and August 2021. The participants' median age was 40.5 (31.6, 52.8) years with median disease duration of 2.8 (1.3, 4.3) years. The median general health literacy index was 31.74 (29.88, 35.82) with significantly greater difficulty in the competency of appraising health information and in the domain of disease prevention ( p < 0.001). Forty-five patients (93.8%) received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine between January and August 2021. Among the 3 unvaccinated patients, 2 intended to receive the vaccination while and 1 did not intend to get vaccinated. There was a high level of trust and belief that their government and healthcare providers had their best interests at heart and that the healthcare providers were honest about the vaccine's risk and benefits, although 31.2% did not understand how the vaccine works and 22.9% believed that there were other ways to prevent infection. Most thought there was adequate safety information, were confident in the system for tracking adverse events and had no issues with access to the vaccine.

          Conclusion

          Participants with IgA nephropathy had high health literacy scores and low vaccine hesitancy. The determinants for vaccine acceptance can potentially guide efforts to optimize vaccination coverage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

          The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models

            Background Health literacy concerns the knowledge and competences of persons to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. Although its importance is increasingly recognised, there is no consensus about the definition of health literacy or about its conceptual dimensions, which limits the possibilities for measurement and comparison. The aim of the study is to review definitions and models on health literacy to develop an integrated definition and conceptual model capturing the most comprehensive evidence-based dimensions of health literacy. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify definitions and conceptual frameworks of health literacy. A content analysis of the definitions and conceptual frameworks was carried out to identify the central dimensions of health literacy and develop an integrated model. Results The review resulted in 17 definitions of health literacy and 12 conceptual models. Based on the content analysis, an integrative conceptual model was developed containing 12 dimensions referring to the knowledge, motivation and competencies of accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion setting, respectively. Conclusions Based upon this review, a model is proposed integrating medical and public health views of health literacy. The model can serve as a basis for developing health literacy enhancing interventions and provide a conceptual basis for the development and validation of measurement tools, capturing the different dimensions of health literacy within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU)

              Background: Health literacy concerns the capacities of people to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. In spite of the growing attention for the concept among European health policymakers, researchers and practitioners, information about the status of health literacy in Europe remains scarce. This article presents selected findings from the first European comparative survey on health literacy in populations. Methods: The European health literacy survey (HLS-EU) was conducted in eight countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain (n = 1000 per country, n = 8000 total sample). Data collection was based on Eurobarometer standards and the implementation of the HLS-EU-Q (questionnaire) in computer-assisted or paper-assisted personal interviews. Results: The HLS-EU-Q constructed four levels of health literacy: insufficient, problematic, sufficient and excellent. At least 1 in 10 (12%) respondents showed insufficient health literacy and almost 1 in 2 (47%) had limited (insufficient or problematic) health literacy. However, the distribution of levels differed substantially across countries (29–62%). Subgroups within the population, defined by financial deprivation, low social status, low education or old age, had higher proportions of people with limited health literacy, suggesting the presence of a social gradient which was also confirmed by raw bivariate correlations and a multivariate linear regression model. Discussion: Limited health literacy represents an important challenge for health policies and practices across Europe, but to a different degree for different countries. The social gradient in health literacy must be taken into account when developing public health strategies to improve health equity in Europe.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Glomerular Dis
                Glomerular Dis
                GDZ
                Glomerular Diseases
                S. Karger AG (Allschwilerstrasse 10, P.O. Box · Postfach · Case postale, CH–4009, Basel, Switzerland · Schweiz · Suisse, Phone: +41 61 306 11 11, Fax: +41 61 306 12 34, karger@karger.com )
                2673-3625
                2673-3633
                24 January 2022
                24 January 2022
                : 1-7
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
                [2] bLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, National Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
                [3] cPharmacy, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
                Author notes
                Article
                gdz-0001
                10.1159/000522158
                9059031
                36747611
                9cbc3622-b05c-48ee-8557-9c622261c0bf
                Copyright © 2022 by S. Karger AG, Basel

                This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 1 November 2021
                : 28 December 2021
                Page count
                Tables: 2, References: 26, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Research Article

                patient education,hls-eu-q47,health literacy,immunization

                Comments

                Comment on this article