COVID-19 vaccination coverage among patients with psychiatric disorders in China during the pandemic: a cross-sectional study

Qin, Yue; Zhao, Ziru; Teng, Ziwei; Xu, Baoyan; Wang, Xianghe; Guo, Junhong; Huang, Jing; Wu, Haishan

doi:10.1186/s12888-022-04271-w

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though low education levels were found to be associated with the prediction of a negative vaccination decision in this study, as in a recent Chinese study on vaccination coverage in psychiatric patients [ 64 ], the current study did not assess the psychological status of the patients. In addition, the Health Belief Model is not the only model that has proven useful in investigating the determinants of health-related behaviors, such as vaccination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Predicting the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Clinical Psychiatric Population—A Cross-Sectional Survey

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spread of the COVID-19 virus created more than a medical crisis, while it also negatively affected the mental health of the general population. This context increased the vulnerability of the psychiatric population. While research interest highly targeted vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, many studies focused on trust issues—both in vaccine efficacy and in communication with authorities. Less is known about the psychological underpinnings of the COVID vaccination decision, specifically in the high-uncertainty circumstances due to the novelty of the virus. In a cross-sectional study, we investigated the predictive value of several cognitive (perceived risk, vulnerability, uncertainty, and trust in one’s decision) and behavioral (previous vaccinations, social media use, and practicing preventive behavior) factors, for the vaccination decision against COVID-19, for 252 psychiatric inpatients (data collected between September 2021 and February 2022). Demographics and diagnostics were also considered. We found a significant relationship between the “Perceived risk of vaccination” and the choice of vaccination (χ2(2, N = 252) = 58.59, p ≤ 0.001), and between the “Trust in own decision to vaccinate” and the decision to vaccinate (χ2(2, N = 252) = 31,5, p ≤ 0.001). The overall regression model was statistically significant (χ2 (9, N = 252) = 97.1, p < 0.001), with between 30% and 45% of the variance in the odds of a positive decision explained by the predictor set. The model coefficients analysis showed that an individual with a psychiatric disorder but with higher confidence in their decision had significant (p < 0.001) increased odds of the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 by 893%. A former voluntary vaccination did not significantly associate with the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 (χ2(1, N = 252) = 2.74, p > 0.05) in this special population. No other behavioral factors, diagnosis, or demographics were significant as predictors, for the clinical psychiatric population surveyed, except the educational level. Implications for future vaccination acceptance of this special population are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Predicting the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Clinical Psychiatric Population—A Cross-Sectional Survey

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty-one of the 33 reviewed studies identified patients with mental health conditions through clinical diagnoses obtained from medical records (Bai et al, 2021; Cai et al, 2022; Curtis, Inglesby, MacKenna, et al, 2022; Curtis, Inglesby, Morton, et al, 2022; Eyllon et al, 2022; Gibbon et al, 2021; Hassan et al, 2022; Jefsen et al, 2021; Mazereel et al, 2021; Moeller et al, 2021; Nilsson et al, 2022; Nishimi, Neylan, et al, 2022; Qin et al, 2022; Raffard et al, 2022; Ren et al, 2021; Shkalim Zemer et al, 2022; Sullivan et al, 2022; Tsai et al, 2022; Tzur Bitan et al, 2022; Uvais, 2022; L. Wang et al, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen of the 33 reviewed studies reported on the association between mental health conditions and the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine or booster vaccine (Table 2, Balut et al, 2021; Curtis, Inglesby, MacKenna, et al, 2022; Curtis, Inglesby, Morton, et al, 2022; Gibbon et al, 2021; Hassan et al, 2022; Huang et al, 2021; Mazereel et al, 2021; Moeller et al, 2021; Murphy et al, 2022; Nguyen et al, 2022; Nilsson et al, 2022; Qin et al, 2022; Raffard et al, 2022; Sekizawa et al, 2022; Shkalim Zemer et al, 2022; Tzur Bitan et al, 2022; Uvais, 2022). Sizes of the studies ranged from N=62 to 57.9 million.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of the 17 studies measured COVID-19 vaccine uptake using participants’ health or medical records (Balut et al, 2021; Curtis, Inglesby, MacKenna, et al, 2022; Curtis, Inglesby, Morton, et al, 2022; Hassan et al, 2022; Moeller et al, 2021; Murphy et al, 2022; Nilsson et al, 2022; Shkalim Zemer et al, 2022; Tzur Bitan et al, 2022), five of the 17 studies asked participants to self-report their vaccine status (Huang et al, 2021; Nguyen et al, 2022; Raffard et al, 2022; Sekizawa et al, 2022; Uvais, 2022), and two of the 17 studies recorded the number of patients in hospital accepting the COVID-19 vaccine when offered (Gibbon et al, 2021; Mazereel et al, 2021). One of the 17 studies did not clearly describe how vaccine uptake was measured (Qin et al, 2022). 13 of the 17 studies reported on people with current mental health conditions (Balut et al, 2021; Gibbon et al, 2021; Huang et al, 2021; Mazereel et al, 2021; Moeller et al, 2021; Murphy et al, 2022; Nguyen et al, 2022; Qin et al, 2022; Raffard et al, 2022; Sekizawa et al, 2022; Shkalim Zemer et al, 2022; Tzur Bitan et al, 2022; Uvais, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighteen of the 33 reviewed studies reported on the association between the presence of mental health conditions and willingness or hesitancy to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or booster vaccine (Abramovich et al, 2022;Afifi et al, 2021;Bai et al, 2021;Cai et al, 2022;Dvorsky et al, 2022;Eyllon et al, 2022;Huang et al, 2021;Jefsen et al, 2021;Khaled et al, 2021;Nguyen et al, 2022;Nishimi, Borsari, et al, 2022;Paul & Fancourt, 2022;Qin et al, 2022;Ren et al, 2021;Roberts et al, 2022;Sekizawa et al, 2022;Sullivan et al, 2022;Tsai et al, 2022). The sizes of the studies range from 92 to 77104 (see Table 1).…”

Section: Mental Health Conditions and Covid-19 Vaccine Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mental health conditions and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes: a scoping review

Jia,

Coupland,

Vinogradova

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health of people worldwide. Mental health also impacts on physical health. In the context of viral illnesses, viral challenge studies have shown that indices of mental health are associated with susceptibility to viral infections, including coronaviruses. Research conducted during the pandemic has shown that people with a history of mental health conditions were at increased risk of infection, hospitalisation, and mortality. However, the relationship between mental health conditions and vaccine outcomes such as vaccine intentions, uptake, and vaccine breakthrough is not yet well-understood. Methods: We conducted a systematic search on the topics of COVID-19 vaccine intentions, vaccine uptake, and vaccine breakthrough, in relation to mental health conditions, in four databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO, as well as the publication lists of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), OpenSAFELY, and QResearch. Inclusion criteria focus on studies reporting either of the aforementioned COVID-19 vaccine outcomes among people with mental health conditions. Results: Thirty-three out of 251 publications met our inclusion criteria for this review. Overall, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the level of intention to accept the COVID-19 vaccine among people with mental health conditions. However, people with mental health conditions were more likely to have lower uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to people without. Common barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake include concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and side effects of the vaccines. Limited evidence also suggests that vaccine breakthrough may be a particular risk for those with substance use disorder. Conclusions: Our findings revealed a possible intention-behaviour gap for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine among people with mental health conditions, yielding interventions to encourage vaccine uptake in this population. There is also the need to enhance our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough in people with mental health conditions.

show abstract

Unlocking access: Addressing the disparities in HPV vaccination for those with mental disorders

Yan

Chen

2023

Asian Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 vaccination coverage among patients with psychiatric disorders in China during the pandemic: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 4 publications

References 45 publications

Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Predicting the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Clinical Psychiatric Population—A Cross-Sectional Survey

Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Predicting the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Clinical Psychiatric Population—A Cross-Sectional Survey

Mental health conditions and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes: a scoping review

Unlocking access: Addressing the disparities in HPV vaccination for those with mental disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About