Vaccination coverage rates of military personnel worldwide: a systematic review of the literature

Vaccination coverage of primary care providers against seasonal influenza, tetanus, pneumococcal pneumonia and herpes zoster: A cross-sectional study in Greece

Introduction

Primary care providers' (PCPs) compliance to self-immunization is important for their protection and the protection of their colleagues and patients and has been associated with the coverage of the general public. In this study, we aim to investigate the vaccination coverage of PCPs.

Methods

A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians, nurses and pharmacists employed in public or private primary care settings in Greece. Demographic and occupational characteristics as well as vaccination coverage data for influenza, tetanus, pneumococcal pneumonia and herpes zoster were collected. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Results

In total, 748 (61.7% response rate) PCPs participated. Vaccination rates were 66.4% (496/747) for influenza (2019/2020 flu season), 62.9% (469/746) for tetanus (10-year Td or Tdap booster dose), 70% (14/20) for pneumococcal pneumonia (≥ 1 dose of PPSV23 or PCV13) and 12.3% (10/81) for herpes zoster. Multiple logistic regression revealed that nurses had significantly lower probability of being vaccinated against influenza [odds ratio (OR) = 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14-0.45] and pharmacists had significantly lower probability of being vaccinated against both influenza (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.31-0.62) and influenza & tetanus (OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.37-0.73) compared to physicians. Older age (>40 years) was an independent risk factor for not receiving a tetanus vaccine (40-49 vs. 19-39; OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.28-0.63, over 50 years old vs. 19-39; OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.36-0.79).

Conclusions

The results revealed suboptimal vaccination rates among health providers who are in the frontline of adult immunization. Individualized and targeted measures to improve their vaccination coverage and indirectly the vaccination coverage of their patients, are therefore required.

Authoritarian leadership and nurse presenteeism: the role of workload and leader identification

BACKGROUND

Nurses' health in the workplace is crucial for ensuring the quality of healthcare. However, presenteeism, the behavior of working in a state of ill health, is widespread in the nursing industry. Considering that the origin of authoritarian leadership and the prevalence of presenteeism are inseparable from Chinese workplace culture, this study aimed to explore the impact and mechanism of authoritarian leadership on presenteeism.

METHODS

A total of 528 nurses were recruited from four grade III level A hospitals in the present survey, which was distributed across 98 nursing teams. Participants were required to complete self-report measures on authoritarian leadership, presenteeism, workload, and leader identification. Description, correlation, and multilevel linear regressions were applied for data analysis.

RESULTS

The present study found that presenteeism was significantly related to participants' demographic characteristics, such as marital status, educational level, technological title, and general health. There was a positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and presenteeism, and workload acted as a mediator in authoritarian leadership and presenteeism. Furthermore, leader identification moderated the relationship between authoritarian leadership and workload. When nurses were under high leader identification, the positive impact of authoritarian leadership on workload was reinforced.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed the potential antecedents and mechanisms of nurse presenteeism from the perspective of workplace culture. Results indicated that the excessive authoritarianism of leaders and the heavy workload faced by nurses may be the significant triggers for nurses' presenteeism. The role of leader identification is not always protective, which may heighten the relationship between dark leadership and its outcomes. These observations contribute to enriching research on presenteeism and authoritarian leadership, and provide valuable insights for cultivating healthy working behaviors.

Religiousness in the first year of COVID-19: A systematic review of empirical research

The COVID-19 pandemic emerged suddenly in early 2020, posing a serious health threat and creating tremendous stress and distress across the world. Religion has been shown to play important and varied roles in previous disasters and health crises, but its roles in the pandemic have yet to be outlined. We aimed to summarize the research conducted on religion and COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic with a systematic review of studies that specifically involved individual-level religiousness and COVID-19. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO covering a one-year period from the first published mention of the novel coronavirus (Jan. 5, 2020) through January 4, 2021. We included articles about COVID-19 that were peer-reviewed and empirical, measured and reported results on religion on an individual level, and were available in English. Our search produced 137 empirical articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the course of sorting studies by their primary focus, eight categories of empirical findings emerged: general distress and wellbeing (53 articles), COVID-19-specific stress (24 articles), beliefs in science, conspiracies, and misinformation (15 articles), COVID-19 public health behaviors (12 articles), perceived risk of COVID-19 (10 articles), perceived growth or positive changes taking place during the pandemic (nine articles), health behaviors (three articles), and consumer behavior (three articles). Findings indicated that religiousness was associated with both unique benefits and challenges and played a significant role in the pandemic. Religiousness was associated with a broad range of outcomes across geographical regions and populations during the first year of COVID-19. It was a commonly reported coping mechanism with varying levels of favorable associations with mental health and COVID-19-related behaviors.

Health care workers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has challenged health systems worldwide, especially the health workforce, a pillar crucial for health systems resilience. Therefore, strengthening health system resilience can be informed by analyzing health care workers' (HCWs) experiences and needs during pandemics. This review synthesizes qualitative studies published during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify factors affecting HCWs' experiences and their support needs during the pandemic. This review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search on PubMed was applied using controlled vocabularies. Only original studies presenting primary qualitative data were included.

RESULTS

161 papers that were published from the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic up until 28th March 2021 were included in the review. Findings were presented using the socio-ecological model as an analytical framework. At the individual level, the impact of the pandemic manifested on HCWs' well-being, daily routine, professional and personal identity. At the interpersonal level, HCWs' personal and professional relationships were identified as crucial. At the institutional level, decision-making processes, organizational aspects and availability of support emerged as important factors affecting HCWs' experiences. At community level, community morale, norms, and public knowledge were of importance. Finally, at policy level, governmental support and response measures shaped HCWs' experiences. The review identified a lack of studies which investigate other HCWs than doctors and nurses, HCWs in non-hospital settings, and HCWs in low- and lower middle income countries.

DISCUSSION

This review shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged HCWs, with multiple contextual factors impacting their experiences and needs. To better understand HCWs' experiences, comparative investigations are needed which analyze differences across as well as within countries, including differences at institutional, community, interpersonal and individual levels. Similarly, interventions aimed at supporting HCWs prior to, during and after pandemics need to consider HCWs' circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a context-sensitive approach to empowering HCWs that accounts for the multitude of aspects which influence their experiences could contribute to building a sustainable health workforce and strengthening health systems for future pandemics.