| 1. |
- Chen, I-Hua, et al.
(författare)
-
Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S) : Evidence of Measurement Invariance Across Five Countries
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. - : DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD. - 1179-1594. ; 15, s. 435-445
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The percentage of individuals who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 was 53% worldwide, 62% in Asia, and 11% in Africa at the time of writing (February 9, 2022). In addition to administrative issues, vaccine hesitancy is an important factor contributing to the relatively low rate of vaccination. The Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S) was developed to assess COVID-19 vaccination acceptance levels. However, it has only been tested among Taiwanese, mainland Chinese, and Ghanaian populations (Chen et al, 2021; Fan et al, 2021; Yeh et al, 2021). Therefore, the present study examined the construct validity and measurement invariance of the MoVac-COVID19S among individuals from five countries (ie, Taiwan, mainland China, India, Ghana, and Afghanistan). Participants and Methods: A cross-sectional survey study recruited 6053 participants across five countries who completed the survey between January and March 2021. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices were used to examine factor structure and measurement invariance across the five countries. Results: The fit indices of the CFA were relatively good across the countries except for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Moreover, the four-factor structure (either nine or 12 items) had a better fit than the one-factor structure. However, the four-factor model using nine MoVac-COVID19S items was the only model that had measurement invariance support for both factor loadings and item intercepts across the five countries. Conclusion: The present study confirmed that the MoVac-COVID19S has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to assess an individual's willingness to get COVID-19 vaccination.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kumar, N, et al.
(författare)
-
Sexual health (excluding reproductive health, intimate partner violence and gender-based violence) and COVID-19: a scoping review
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Sexually transmitted infections. - : BMJ. - 1472-3263 .- 1368-4973. ; 97:6, s. 402-410
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated existing socioeconomic and health disparities, including disparities in sexual health and well-being. While there have been several reviews published on COVID-19 and population health disparities generally—including some with attention to HIV—none has focused on sexual health (ie, STI care, female sexual health, sexual behaviour). We have conducted a scoping review focused on sexual health (excluding reproductive health (RH), intimate partner violence (IPV) and gender-based violence (GBV)) in the COVID-19 era, examining sexual behaviours and sexual health outcomes.MethodsA scoping review, compiling both peer-reviewed and grey literature, focused on sexual health (excluding RH, IPV and GBV) and COVID-19 was conducted on 15 September 2020. Multiple bibliographical databases were searched. Study selection conformed to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. We only included English-language original studies.ResultsWe found that men who have sex with men may be moving back toward pre-pandemic levels of sexual activity, and that STI and HIV testing rates seem to have decreased. There was minimal focus on outcomes such as the economic impact on sexual health (excluding RH, IPV and GBV) and STI care, especially STI care of marginalised populations. In terms of population groups, there was limited focus on sex workers or on women, especially women’s sexual behaviour and mental health. We noticed limited use of qualitative techniques. Very few studies were in low/middle-income countries (LMICs).ConclusionsSexual health research is critical during a global infectious disease pandemic and our review of studies suggested notable research gaps. Researchers can focus efforts on LMICs and under-researched topics within sexual health and explore the use of qualitative techniques and interventions where appropriate.
|
|
