Woods, Cynthia

Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States is high, with at least 63 million unvaccinated individuals to date. Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations experience lower COVID-19 vaccination rates despite facing a disproportionate COVID-19 burden. Objective: To assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among under-resourced, adult patients. Methods: Participants were patients receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Data were collected via multiple modes over 2 phases in 2020 (self-administered electronic survey) and 2021 (study team-administered survey by telephone, self-administered written survey) to promote diversity and inclusion for study participation. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Using logistic regression analysis, associations between vaccine acceptance and factors including risk perception, concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine, social determinants of health (SDOH), co-morbidities, pandemic-induced hardships, and stress were assessed by adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: One hundred sixty-eight patients (62.5% female; mean age [SD]: 49.9 [17.4] years; 32% <$20 000 annual household income; 69% <college education) were included in the study. Sixty-one percent of the patients received or were willing to receive the vaccine. Risk perception was positively associated with vaccine acceptance (AOR: 5.3; 95% CI: 2.5, 11.5, P < .001), while concerns about the vaccine (eg, safety, side effects, rapid development of the vaccine, etc.) were negatively associated with vaccine acceptance (all P < .001). SDOH, co-morbidities, pandemic-induced hardships were not associated with vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: Our study in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population suggests that risk perception is associated with an increased likelihood of vaccine acceptance, while concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine are associated with a lower likelihood of vaccine acceptance. As these factors could impact vaccine uptake, consistent, innovative, and context-specific risk communication strategies may improve vaccine coverage in this population.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected underserved and minority populations in the United States. This is partially attributable to limited access to diagnostic testing from deeply rooted structural inequities precipitating higher infection and mortality rates. We describe the process of establishing a drive-through collection site by leveraging an academic–community partnership between a medical institution and a federally qualified health center in Minnesota. Over 10 weeks, 2006 COVID-19 tests were provided to a socioeconomically disadvantaged population of racial/ethnic minorities and low-income essential workers.

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

Introduction: Several recent studies have shown a gender disparity in professional doctoral introductions at major medical conferences, with female speakers being less likely to be introduced with a professional title. We sought to examine whether a similar disparity existed at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 8 investigators reviewed available presentations from video archives of the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. Presentations were excluded if gender could not be identified and/or speaker did not have a doctoral degree. We collected data on speaker gender, speaker academic/non-academic rank, speaker geographic location, speaker training status, speaker session type and introducer gender were all collected. A "professional address" was defined as either "Dr. [First and Last Name]" or "Dr. [Last Name]." Descriptive statistics and regression modelling were used to analyze the data. Results:Of the videos reviewed, 645 presentations were eligible for analysis; 380 (59%) speakers were men and 264 (41%) were women. A comparison of male and female speaker cohorts is seen in Table 1. Forty-eight percent of both men and women held a Medical Doctor degree (MD), and the rest were MD/PhD or PhD graduates. Substantially more men (28%) were full professors compared to women (13%). Almost half (47%) of session types for both men and women speakers were designated as "basic science." In an adjusted analysis, more women (N=174, 66%) compared to men (N=225, 59%) received a professional address (P&lt;.01). 43% of women were introduced by a female introducer and 42% of men were introduced by a female introducer (P=.79). In addition, 48 of the introducers (19%) for women and 68 of the introducers (18%) for men had a PhD or MD/PhD. In a logistic regression model adjusting for session type, academic rank, degree, geographic location, trainee status, and gender of introducer, there were no significant gender-based differences in professional introduction [Table 1; Odds Ratio (OR) 0.71, P=.06]. In addition, speakers with MD introducers were more likely to have a professional introduction compared to PhD introducers (OR 2.15, P=.03) regardless of sex. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that women were at least as likely as men to receive a professional address at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. These results differ from previous studies of other professional medical conferences. These findings may reflect the strong presence of PhD graduates as both speakers and introducers. Both forms of bias (gender and degree-based) merit further study and interventions including speaker training to ensure combatting unconscious bias. Disclosures Velazquez: Midatech: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Husband is employed by this company.

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.