14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A multi-component, community-based strategy to facilitate COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Latinx populations: From theory to practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the Latinx community depends on delivery systems that overcome barriers such as institutional distrust, misinformation, and access to care. We hypothesized that a community-centered vaccination strategy that included mobilization, vaccination, and “activation” components could successfully reach an underserved Latinx population, utilizing its social networks to boost vaccination coverage.

          Methods

          Our community-academic-public health partnership, “Unidos en Salud,” utilized a theory-informed approach to design our “Motivate, Vaccinate, and Activate” COVID-19 vaccination strategy. Our strategy’s design was guided by the PRECEDE Model and sought to address and overcome predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing barriers to COVID-19 vaccination faced by Latinx individuals in San Francisco. We evaluated our prototype outdoor, “neighborhood” vaccination program located in a central commercial and transport hub in the Mission District in San Francisco, using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework during a 16-week period from February 1, 2021 to May 19, 2021. Programmatic data, city-wide COVID-19 surveillance data, and a survey conducted between May 2, 2021 and May 19, 2021 among 997 vaccinated clients ≥16 years old were used in the evaluation.

          Results

          There were 20,792 COVID-19 vaccinations administered at the neighborhood site during the 16-week evaluation period. Vaccine recipients had a median age of 43 (IQR 32–56) years, 53.9% were male and 70.5% were Latinx, 14.1% white, 7.7% Asian, 2.4% Black, and 5.3% other. Latinx vaccinated clients were substantially more likely than non-Latinx clients to have an annual household income of less than $50,000 a year (76.1% vs. 33.5%), be a first-generation immigrant (60.2% vs. 30.1%), not have health insurance (47.3% vs. 16.0%), and not have access to primary care provider (62.4% vs. 36.2%). The most frequently reported reasons for choosing vaccination at the site were its neighborhood location (28.6%), easy and convenient scheduling (26.9%) and recommendation by someone they trusted (18.1%); approximately 99% reported having an overall positive experience, regardless of ethnicity. Notably, 58.3% of clients reported that they were able to get vaccinated earlier because of the neighborhood vaccination site, 98.4% of clients completed both vaccine doses, and 90.7% said that they were more likely to recommend COVID-19 vaccination to family and friends after their experience; these findings did not substantially differ according to ethnicity. There were 40.3% of vaccinated clients who said they still knew at least one unvaccinated person (64.6% knew ≥3). Among clients who received both vaccine doses (n = 729), 91.0% said that after their vaccination experience, they had personally reached out to at least one unvaccinated person they knew (61.6% reached out to ≥3) to recommend getting vaccinated; 83.0% of clients reported that one or more friends, and/or family members got vaccinated as a result of their outreach, including 18.9% who reported 6 or more persons got vaccinated as a result of their influence.

          Conclusions

          A multi-component, “Motivate, Vaccinate, and Activate” community-based strategy addressing barriers to COVID-19 vaccination for the Latinx population reached the intended population, and vaccinated individuals served as ambassadors to recruit other friends and family members to get vaccinated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SoftwareRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                20 September 2021
                2021
                20 September 2021
                : 16
                : 9
                : e0257111
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [2 ] Unidos en Salud, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [4 ] Clínica Martín Baró, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [5 ] The San Francisco Latino Task Force-Response to COVID-19, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [6 ] Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [7 ] San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [8 ] Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services (BayPLS), San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [9 ] Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
                [10 ] Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [11 ] Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [12 ] Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America
                Oregon State University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7622-6562
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5023-6658
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1550-9315
                Article
                PONE-D-21-19310
                10.1371/journal.pone.0257111
                8452046
                34543291
                cac734b3-9a86-4d2a-b061-f6b9afa16def
                © 2021 Marquez et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 11 June 2021
                : 23 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 5, Pages: 27
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008069, University of California, San Francisco;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: San Francisco Department of Public Health
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: T32 AI060530
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: T32 AI060530
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by University of California, San Francisco ( http://www.ucsf.edu), the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://chanzuckerberg.com__;!!LQC6Cpwp!_kOZyaVmp6cASxENUlQH2bpstcBdps63uocYYCdsMxaO5vd9CxrZckurtdxZ0dDkrqqPlw$), and the San Francisco Department of Public Health. A.D.K and L.R. was funded by T32 AI060530. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Control
                Vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Earth Sciences
                Geography
                Human Geography
                Social Geography
                Neighborhoods
                Social Sciences
                Human Geography
                Social Geography
                Neighborhoods
                Medicine and health sciences
                Medical conditions
                Infectious diseases
                Infectious disease control
                Vaccines
                Viral vaccines
                HIV vaccines
                Biology and life sciences
                Microbiology
                Virology
                Viral vaccines
                HIV vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Virus Testing
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Network Analysis
                Social Networks
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Social Networks
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Multilingualism
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Multilingualism
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Multilingualism
                Custom metadata
                The work was funded by University of California, San Francisco; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative; San Francisco Department of Public Health; and A.D.K and L.R were funded by National Institutes of Health (T32 AI060530).
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article