This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
Objectives: To investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, namely, China and the United States (U.S.). Method: A cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the United States, and discrete choice experiments, as well as Likert scales, were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to vaccination acceptance. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries. Results: A total of 9077 (5375 and 3702 from China and the United States, respectively) respondents completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% of respondents from China positively accepted the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% of respondents from the United States positively accepted it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the U.S. respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the United States attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint, that the cost of vaccination covered the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Additionally, respondents from China tended to be much more concerned about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs. 6.12%) and have a lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19. Conclusion: Although the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between these countries were observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in the two countries, vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.
Taoran Liu; Zonglin He; Jian Huang; Ni Yan; Qian Chen; Fengqiu Huang; Yuejia Zhang; Omolola Akinwunmi; Babatunde Akinwunmi; Casper Zhang; Yibo Wu; Wai-Kit Ming. A Comparison of Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination in China and the United States. Vaccines 2021, 9, 649 .
AMA StyleTaoran Liu, Zonglin He, Jian Huang, Ni Yan, Qian Chen, Fengqiu Huang, Yuejia Zhang, Omolola Akinwunmi, Babatunde Akinwunmi, Casper Zhang, Yibo Wu, Wai-Kit Ming. A Comparison of Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination in China and the United States. Vaccines. 2021; 9 (6):649.
Chicago/Turabian StyleTaoran Liu; Zonglin He; Jian Huang; Ni Yan; Qian Chen; Fengqiu Huang; Yuejia Zhang; Omolola Akinwunmi; Babatunde Akinwunmi; Casper Zhang; Yibo Wu; Wai-Kit Ming. 2021. "A Comparison of Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination in China and the United States." Vaccines 9, no. 6: 649.
Background: The role of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD) as an adjuvant therapy in antitumor treatment is not well established. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to investigate the efficacy of LCKD as an adjuvant therapy in antitumor treatment compared to non-ketogenic diet in terms of lipid profile, body weight, fasting glucose level, insulin, and adverse effects; Methods: In this study, databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane trials were searched. Only RCTs that involved cancer participants that were assigned to dietary interventions including a LCKD group and a control group (any non-ketogenic dietary intervention) were selected. Three reviewers independently extracted the data, and the meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model or random effects model depending on the I2 value or p-value; Results: A total of six articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the overall analysis, the post-intervention results = standard mean difference, SMD (95% CI) showed total cholesterol (TC) level = 0.25 (−0.17, 0.67), HDL-cholesterol = −0.07 (−0.50, 0.35), LDL-cholesterol = 0.21 (−0.21, 0.63), triglyceride (TG) = 0.09 (−0.33, 0.51), body weight (BW) = −0.34 (−1.33, 0.65), fasting blood glucose (FBG) = −0.40 (−1.23, 0.42) and insulin = 0.11 (−1.33, 1.55). There were three outcomes showing significant results in those in LCKD group: the tumor marker PSA, p = 0.03, the achievement of ketosis p = 0.010, and the level of satisfaction, p = 0.005; Conclusions: There was inadequate evidence to support the beneficial effects of LCKDs on antitumor therapy. More trials comparing LCKD and non-KD with a larger sample size are necessary to give a more conclusive result.
Ya-Feng Yang; Preety Mattamel; Tanya Joseph; Jian Huang; Qian Chen; Babatunde Akinwunmi; Casper Zhang; Wai-Kit Ming. Efficacy of Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1388 .
AMA StyleYa-Feng Yang, Preety Mattamel, Tanya Joseph, Jian Huang, Qian Chen, Babatunde Akinwunmi, Casper Zhang, Wai-Kit Ming. Efficacy of Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2021; 13 (5):1388.
Chicago/Turabian StyleYa-Feng Yang; Preety Mattamel; Tanya Joseph; Jian Huang; Qian Chen; Babatunde Akinwunmi; Casper Zhang; Wai-Kit Ming. 2021. "Efficacy of Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials." Nutrients 13, no. 5: 1388.