Objectives: Understanding vaccine intentions and attitudes of health professionals is critical as the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID19 vaccines are being administered throughout the United States. This study estimates the level of vaccine hesitancy at a health sciences center in West Texas prior to the distribution of the vaccines. Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was performed via anonymous Qualtrics survey administered to approximately 4500 faculty, staff, postdoctoral research associates/medical residents, and employees at a multi-campus health sciences university in the United States. Respondents were asked demographic questions and intention to receive the vaccine. Factors associated with the intention to receive a vaccine were determined using logistic regression analysis. Results: A total sample of 2258 subjects were evaluated (50.0% response rate). Among all respondents, 64.6% reported that they would probably or definitely receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Men had higher levels of intention to receive the vaccine (OR = 2.11, 95% CI 1.64-2.71); respondents who indicated yearly influenza vaccines are necessary were also more likely to receive the vaccine (OR = 6.04, 95% CI 4.70-7.75). Eighty-three percent of faculty and 56% of the staff reported intention to receive the vaccine. Respondents who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported more interest in receiving the vaccine (58.5% yes vs 41.5% no). Conclusion: In this study, the intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccination at a United States health sciences center falls below the necessary herd immunity estimates. Public health initiatives must be developed to decrease vaccine hesitancy, especially among health professionals.

No abstract

The sample size of subgroups was not large enough to make comparisons of the MIC between countries or skin types. Future studies should aim to assess the MIC and SDC within the same patient population, including different ethnicities, to provide more representative results and could focus on further optimizations (eg, by use of VESplus) to reduce the SDC to become smaller than the MIC. 5 Patients seem to perceive even very small changes in BSA involvement as an improvement and that location and disease extent are important to consider when interpreting changes in VES and SA-VES. Our results improve the interpretability of these measurement instruments and can be used to determine number of responders in future studies using the VES and SA-VES as outcome instruments.We express our gratitude to the volunteering patients who participated in this study.