OBJECTIVE: To examine how height and youth as well as parenting characteristics associate with quality of life (QoL) and self-esteem among healthy youth undergoing growth evaluation with growth hormone (GH) testing .

STUDY DESIGN: Healthy youth, age 8-14 years, undergoing provocative GH testing, and a parent completed surveys at or around the time of testing. Surveys collected demographic data; youth and parent reports of youth health-related QoL; youth reports of self-esteem, coping skills, social support, and parental autonomy support; and parent reports of perceived environmental threats and achievement goals for their child. Clinical data were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate models and multivariable linear regressions were used to identify factors associated with QoL and self-esteem.

RESULTS: Sixty youth (mean height Z-score -2.18 ± 0.61) and their parents participated. On multivariable modeling, youth perceptions of their physical QoL associated with higher grade in school, greater friend and classmate support, and older parent age; youth psychosocial QoL with greater friend and classmate support, and with less disengaged coping; and youth height-related QoL and parental perceptions of youth psychosocial QoL with greater classmate support. Youth self-esteem associated with greater classmate support and taller mid-parental height. Youth height was not associated with QoL or self-esteem outcomes in multivariable regression.

CONCLUSIONS: Perceived social support and coping skills, rather than height, were related to QoL and self-esteem in healthy short youth and may serve as an important potential area for clinical intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the burden of adverse kidney and hypertension outcomes in patients evaluated by pediatric nephrology in a multidisciplinary survivorship clinic.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all patients followed up by nephrology in our multidisciplinary survivorship clinic from August 2013 to June 2021. Data included clinic blood pressure, longitudinal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), echocardiography, serum creatinine, and first-morning urine protein/creatinine ratios. For patients with multiple ABPMs, results of initial and most recent ABPMs were compared.

RESULTS: Of 422 patients followed in the multidisciplinary cancer survivorship clinic, 130 were seen by nephrology. The median time after therapy completion to first nephrology visit was 8 years. The most common diagnoses were leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (27%), neuroblastoma (24%), and Wilms tumor (15%). At the last follow-up, 68% had impaired kidney function, 38% had a clinical diagnosis of hypertension, and 12% had proteinuria. There were 91 ABPMs performed in 55 (42%) patients. Patients with multiple ABPMs (n = 21) had statistically significant reductions in overall median blood pressure loads: systolic initial load 37% vs most recent 10% (P = .005) and diastolic load 36% vs 14% (P = .017). Patients with impaired kidney function were more likely to have received ifosfamide. Patients with hypertension were more likely to have received total body irradiation or allogeneic stem cell transplant.

CONCLUSIONS: History of leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome, neuroblastoma, and Wilms tumor was frequent among survivors seen by nephrology. There was significant improvement in cardiovascular measures with increased recognition of hypertension and subsequent treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the burden of adverse kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in patients evaluated by pediatric nephrology in a multidisciplinary survivorship clinic.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all patients followed by nephrology in our multidisciplinary survivorship clinic from 8/2013-6/2021. Data included clinic blood pressure (BP), longitudinal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), echocardiography, serum creatinine, and first-morning urine protein/creatinine ratios. For patients with multiple ABPMs, results of initial and most recent ABPMs were compared.

RESULTS: Of 422 patients followed in the multidisciplinary cancer survivorship clinic, 130 were seen by nephrology. Median time after therapy completion to first nephrology visit was 8 years. The most common diagnoses were leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (27%), neuroblastoma (24%), and Wilms tumor (15%). At last follow-up, 68% had impaired kidney function, 38% had a clinical diagnosis of hypertension, and 12% had proteinuria. There were 91 ABPMs performed in 55 (42%) patients. Patients with multiple ABPMs (n=21) had statistically significant reductions in overall median BP loads: systolic initial load 37% vs. most recent 10% (p=0.005) and diastolic load 36% vs. 14% (p=0.017). Patients with impaired kidney function were more likely to have received ifosfamide. Patients with hypertension were more likely to have received total body irradiation or allogeneic stem cell transplant.

CONCLUSIONS: History of leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome, neuroblastoma, and Wilms tumor were frequent among survivors seen by nephrology. There was significant improvement in cardiovascular measures with increased recognition of hypertension and subsequent treatment.

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia.</p>

<p><strong>DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: </strong>HCP were surveyed between November-December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (MD, NP/PA, RN) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 MDs/DOs, 582 NPs, 158 PAs, and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs/NPs and 13.1% of MDs/DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (OR∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR∼2).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Although a majority of clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race/ethnicity across all positions. These results underline the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.</p>

<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Significant differences in hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity have been observed in several settings. Racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs), who face occupational and community exposure to COVID-19, have not been well described.</p>

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs across different racial/ethnic groups and assess factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.</p>

<p><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants: </strong>This survey study was conducted among HCWs from 2 large academic hospitals (ie, a children's hospital and an adult hospital) over a 3-week period in November and December 2020. Eligible participants were HCWs with and without direct patient contact. A 3-step hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between race/ethnicity and vaccine hesitancy controlling for demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, COVID-19 exposure risk, and being up to date with routine vaccinations. Data were analyzed from February through March 2021.</p>

<p><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy, defined as not planning on, being unsure about, or planning to delay vaccination, served as the outcome.</p>

<p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 865 HCWs eligible for this study, 12 034 individuals (34.5%) completed the survey and 10 871 individuals (32.2%) completed the survey and reported their race/ethnicity. Among 10 866 of these HCWs with data on sex, 8362 individuals (76.9%) were women, and among 10 833 HCWs with age data, 5923 individuals (54.5%) were younger than age 40 years. (Percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics are among the number of respondents for each type of question.) There were 8388 White individuals (77.2%), 882 Black individuals (8.1%), 845 Asian individuals (7.8%), and 449 individuals with other or mixed race/ethnicity (4.1%), and there were 307 Hispanic or Latino individuals (2.8%). Vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black HCWs (732 individuals [83.0%]) and Hispanic or Latino HCWs (195 individuals [63.5%]) (P &lt; .001). Among 5440 HCWs with vaccine hesitancy, reasons given for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (4737 individuals [87.1%]), newness of the vaccine (4306 individuals [79.2%]), and lack of vaccine knowledge (4091 individuals [75.2%]). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy was 4.98 (95% CI, 4.11-6.03) among Black HCWs, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.63-2.70) among Hispanic or Latino HCWs, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.21-1.82) among HCWs with other or mixed race/ethnicity, and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.26-1.71) among Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs (P &lt; .001). The aOR was decreased among Black HCWs when adjusting for employment characteristics and COVID-19 exposure risk (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.96-6.00; P &lt; .001) and being up to date with prior vaccines (aOR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.62-5.53; P &lt; .001) but not among HCWs with other racial/ethnic backgrounds.</p>

<p><strong>Conclusions and Relevance: </strong>This study found that vaccine hesitancy before the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine was increased among Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs. These findings suggest that interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among HCWs are needed.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Health care personnel have been identified by the ACIP as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey in November-December 2020 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia to evaluate the intention of hospital employees to be vaccinated.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>The survey was sent electronically to all employees (clinical and nonclinical staff) at a children's hospital and an adult hospital. The survey was voluntary and confidential. Questions focused on plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available, reasons why employees would/would not get vaccinated, when employees planned to be vaccinated, vaccine safety and efficacy features that would be acceptable, and past history of receipt of other vaccines by the employee and family. Responses were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression methods.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>A total of 12,034 hospital employees completed the survey (a 34.5% response rate). Overall, 63.7% of employees reported that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 26.3% were unsure, and 10.0% did not plan to be vaccinated. Over 80% of those unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated expressed concerns about vaccine side effects and the vaccines' newness. In multivariable logistic regression, persons planning to take a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be older, male, more educated, Asian or White, up-to-date on vaccinations, without direct patient contact, and tested for COVID-19 in the past. No significant difference in intention to be vaccinated was found between those with higher versus lower levels of exposure to COVID-19 patients or the number of previous exposures to patients with COVID-19.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>While the majority of hospital employees are planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, many are unsure or not planning to do so. Further education of hospital employees about the safety, efficacy, and value of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines is critical to vaccine acceptance in this population.</p>