Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAs coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign underway, little is known about the vaccination coverage and the underlying barriers of the vaccination campaign in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectiveTo investigate the vaccination status and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among PD patients.MethodsIn concordance with the CHERRIES guideline, a web-based, single-center survey was promoted to patients with PD via an online platform from April 2022 and May 2022. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.ResultsA total of 187 PD cases participated in this online survey (response rate of 23%). COVID-19 vaccination rate was 54.0%. Most participants had a fear of COVID-19 (77.5%) and trusted the efficacy (82.9%) and safety (66.8%) of COVID-19 vaccine. Trust in government (70.3%) and concerns about the impact of vaccine on their disease (67.4%) were the most common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, respectively. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was independently associated with the history of flu vaccination (OR: 0.09, p p p p p ConclusionsThe COVID-19 vaccination rate remained low in PD patients, however, most individuals understood benefits of vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was affected by multiple factors such as geographic factor, history of flu vaccination, disease duration and trust in efficacy of vaccine. These findings could help government and public health authorities to overcome the barrier to COVID-19 vaccination and improve vaccine roll-out in PD patients.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.