Behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers: a rapid review

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices among healthcare providers in the US

OBJECTIVE

To understand relationships between COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, confidence, trust, sociodemographic/practice characteristics, and COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices among US healthcare providers.

METHODS

In November 2021, an electronic survey was administered to nurses and physicians in the US via Qualtrics®. The survey included: (1) COVID-19 perceptions, (2) vaccine confidence, (3) trust, (4) uptake, (5) recommendation practices, and (6) sociodemographic/practice characteristics. Binary logistic regressions were used to obtain unadjusted/adjusted odds ratios in predicting recommendation practices of COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

The survey included 304 participants. In adjusted analyses, not believing that COVID-19 was man-made, not living in southeastern US (as compared to living in southeast), having no concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, having more positive perceptions about the vaccines, and having more trust in healthcare, media, vaccine manufacturers, and public health authorities was significantly (p < 0.05) related to routinely recommending the vaccine for all patients 12 and older. Providers who did not think COVID-19 was man-made had 6.1 (95 % CI = 1.10 - 33.5) times the odds to recommend the vaccine. Providers not practicing in the southeast region had 5.2 (95 % CI = 1.39 - 19.8) times the odds to recommend the vaccine.

CONCLUSION

To increase provider recommendation of COVID-19 vaccines, beliefs about disease origin, concerns, and trust should be addressed.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clear, accurate, and trusted information delivery about COVID-19 vaccines to healthcare providers is needed, and in turn this may reduce patient vaccine hesitancy.

Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccination and Perceptions Around Vaccination Uptake Strategies Among African Americans Living in the US South: Opportunities for Public Health Program Intervention

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the differences in vaccine hesitancy by vaccination status among African Americans (AAs) living in South Georgia and identifies preferred vaccine uptake strategies by the non-vaccinated AA.

METHODS

Survey data collected as a part of a COVID-19 Health Literacy program from adult (≥ 18 years) participants (n = 2058) in Albany, GA, was used (October 2022 to July 2023). We dichotomized COVID-19 vaccination status as "vaccinated" if reported having received at least one dose of vaccine, and "non-vaccinated" otherwise. Perception of vaccine barriers was assessed using 28 questions, and vaccine uptake strategies using 7 questions. All were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, transformed to a dichotomous response, i.e., agree (merged strongly agree or agree responses) and disagree (merged strongly disagree, or disagree responses); neutral responses were dropped. Descriptive analysis and chi-square tests were used to identify the most prominent barriers to vaccination and the preferred uptake strategies among the non-vaccinated.

RESULTS

Nearly 1500 participants provided a non-neutral response to vaccine hesitancy questions, where the majority (90.7%) were vaccinated. Medical concerns and myth-related barriers were significantly associated with being vaccinated or non-vaccinated: for example, only 71.3% of non-vaccinated agreed that blood clots from the vaccine are of concern (a myth) compared to 40.5% of vaccinated (p-value < 0.001). Receiving additional information on the COVID-19 vaccine was selected as the most preferred strategy by the nonvaccinated.

CONCLUSION

Medical concerns and myth-related barriers were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy, which could potentially be addressed by providing additional information on COVID-19 vaccination.

Strategies to support the mental health and well-being of health and care workforce: a rapid review of reviews

Background

Countries globally face challenges in educating, employing and retaining their health and care workforce, largely due to underinvestment in health systems. Health and care workforce report significantly greater levels of job-related burnout and mental health problems, which in turn are associated with poorer patient outcomes, increased medical errors, diminished quality and safety, decreased patient satisfaction, and reduced healthcare efficiency.

Objective

We conducted a rapid review of systematic reviews to evaluate the mental health and well-being of health and care workers since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify interventions available at organizational and individual levels.

Methods

PubMed and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews published between May 2022 and February 2024. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews written in English with quantitative design, with or without meta-analysis.

Results

Fifty articles met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Overall, there has not been a significant change in the prevalence of depression and anxiety among health and care workforce since 2022, suggesting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers' mental health and well-being was not specific to their experience working during the pandemic. Sixteen studies reported two types of mental health and well-being interventions: individual-level interventions and organizational-level interventions with specific impact on mental health and work environment variables. No specific policy interventions were found. However, some studies suggested policy interventions to improve the mental health and well-being of the health and care workforce.

Discussion

Our analysis highlighted the need for systemic changes to protect the mental health and well-being of the health and care workforce in the post-COVID-19 era. Despite the wealth of evidence on mental health problems and on effective interventions, there remains a notable gap in systemic implementation and organizational accountability. The call to action for a paradigm shift must be embraced and we must strive to build resilient healthcare systems and invest in active support and sustain them, incorporating structural, non-structural and functional aspects of organizational resilience.

COVID-19 vaccination refusal among the anti-vaccinationists in a Chinese society: a critical medical anthropology study of the vaccination barriers

Introduction

This study investigated the reasons for COVID-19 vaccination refusal among some Hong Kong residents who were anti-vaccinationists, despite the implementation of a vaccine incentive policy called the Vaccine Pass. The health belief model and the theory of planned behavior have been widely employed to analyze the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination. However, these two theories focus on the micro individual factors, which do not provide a sufficiently comprehensive analysis.

Study design

A qualitative descriptive approach with a critical medical anthropology framework.

Methods

This study adopts a critical medical anthropology framework that provides a micro and macro analysis at four social levels. A qualitative approach with individual, semi-structured, in-depth interviews was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 with 30 individuals aged 20-59 years who did not receive COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong. The participants were recruited through purposive sampling and snowball sampling. A thematic analysis of data was implemented.

Results

The reasons for COVID-19 vaccination refusal involved intertwining relationships among factors in the four social levels of the critical medical anthropology framework. The participants' doubts about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines at the individual level were interacting with: (1) their ethnocultural beliefs and the perceived profit-oriented nature of vaccine production and distribution at the macro-social level, (2) their interpretation of the inconsistent advice of medical doctors at the micro-social level, and (3) their distrust in the government's vaccination policies at the intermediate-social level.

Conclusion

The participants' refusal of COVID-19 vaccines was correlated with perceived profit motives related to the vaccine, perceived conflict of interest of health-care providers, and the distrust of government.

Intention and potential determinants of COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers at a single university hospital in Japan, 2024-2025 pre-season

BACKGROUND

Financial accessibility has emerged as a significant barrier to vaccine uptake following the cessation of universal public funding for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. This investigation assessed the intention and determinant factors of COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in Japan in the 2024-2025 pre-season.

METHODS

A retrospective survey was conducted utilizing data collected from hospital staff at Okayama University Hospital, Japan, to inform the COVID-19 vaccination strategy in October 2024. The analysis evaluated demographic characteristics, vaccine intention, perceived barriers to vaccination, and maximum acceptable out-of-pocket expenditure.

RESULTS

The study population of 3417 respondents comprised 843 medical doctors (24.7 %), 1131 nurses (33.1 %), 320 other medical staff (9.4 %), 286 dental doctors (8.4 %), and 627 administrative officers (18.3 %). At full cost, 2109 (61.7 %) indicated no intention to receive vaccination, while only 4.4 % expressed willingness to be vaccinated and 33.9 % remained undecided. With total self-payment, the vaccination acceptance rates were the highest and lowest among medical doctors (11.4 %) and nurses (1.0 %), respectively. Cost (38.1 %), followed by safety issues (29.5 %) and concerns regarding efficacy or medical necessity (20.3 %), emerged as the primary barrier. The projected vaccination intention increased to 43.9 % and 54.9 % at reduced self-pay costs of 3000 JPY and 5000 JPY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing financial constraints through policy interventions could be effective strategies in increasing overall vaccination coverage among healthcare workers. In addition, providing tailored education on vaccine safety, efficacy, and necessity may further facilitate increased vaccine uptake within this critical population.

Healthcare providers' hospital breastfeeding practices during the COVID-19 endemic and associated factors in Thailand: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

During COVID-19, healthcare providers were limited in their ability to provide breastfeeding support while women encountered breastfeeding difficulties. Enhancing appropriate breastfeeding care practices among healthcare providers in hospitals may improve the safety of breastfeeding during an endemic. However, little is known about the breastfeeding care practices by healthcare providers and associated factors during the endemic impact.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the endemic on breastfeeding care practices by healthcare providers in hospitals and examine their associated factors in Thailand.

METHODS

A descriptive comparative design was conducted through an online survey with 350 healthcare providers across five regions of Thailand between January and March 2022. The convenience sampling was used to recruit healthcare providers who had at least two years of experience supporting breastfeeding practices and were full-time working in the obstetric and pediatric departments of public tertiary hospitals. Analysis of variance and the independent t-test with relevant statistical corrections were utilized for comparisons of associated factors on breastfeeding care practices in healthcare providers.

RESULTS

The mean breastfeeding care practices in hospitals during the COVID-19 endemic by healthcare providers was 39.17 (SD = 4.64, range 23 to 50). Four factors were statistically significant differences in breastfeeding care practices score, including work position (F = 7.03, df = 2.0, p = 0.001), types of COVID-19 vaccination (F = 6.95, df = 2, p = 0.001), education (F = 4.78, df = 2, p = 0.009), and monthly family income (F = 4.25, df = 3, p = 0.006), respectively. In addition, dose of COVID-19 vaccination and types of COVID-19 vaccination were significantly associated with individual breastfeeding support in hospitals (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare providers' breastfeeding care practices in hospitals during the COVID-19 endemic were mostly at a moderate level in the Thai context. Hospital policy for maternal and child health support should strongly recommend the effective and safe practice of breastfeeding to encourage mothers to continue their breastfeeding duration.

Watchful, skeptics, and system distrusters: Characteristics associated with different types of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among U.S. working-age adults

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is complex, with adults identifying various reasons for not getting vaccinated. Using data from the 2022 National Wellbeing Survey on 7612 U.S. adults aged 18-64, we identified how age, race/ethnicity, sex, marital status, education, income, employment status, partisanship, and metropolitan status are associated with COVID-19 vaccination status and three non-mutually exclusive types of vaccine hesitancy: 1) watchful, concerned about vaccine side effects and efficacy; 2) skeptics, distrust the vaccine, and 3) system distrusters, distrust government. A third of respondents overall (N = 2643) had not received at least one dose at the time of the survey. Among respondents who were not vaccinated, 67 % are classified as watchful, 53 % are skeptics, and 32 % are system distrusters. Results from logistic regression show that concerns about side effects and safety (watchfulness) appear to be major drivers for not getting vaccinated among females and among non-Hispanic Black and unmarried adults, whereas skepticism and distrust appear to be more important barriers among ages 25-44. All three types of hesitancy appear to be important contributors to lower vaccination uptake among low-income, low-education, and unemployed adults, and among individuals who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election (with skepticism and distrust being most endorsed by this group). Findings suggest that universal messaging and intervention strategies are unlikely to be effective in reducing vaccine hesitancy. Different messages, messengers, and tactics must be used with different groups.

Increasing vaccination coverage among healthcare workers: Active call and mandatory laws. Data from a large general hospital in Southern Italy

Influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are respiratory pathogens which significantly impact healthcare systems. Seasonal vaccination is recommended for all healthcare workers (HCWs) to reduce the risk for both operators and patients. Puglia, a region in Southern Italy, has been enforcing since 2018 a law mandating influenza vaccination in healthcare workers. However, vaccination coverages for this category have always been suboptimal. Our study tests the effectiveness of an active recall intervention on vaccination coverage for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in the HCWs of a large Apulian hospital (Southern Italy). During the 2023-2024 influenza vaccination season, unvaccinated HCWs of Bari's Policlinico General Hospital were contacted. The e-mail reminded them of a regional law mandating influenza vaccination to all HCWs and offered an appointment for vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was also offered. In 2022-2023, 43.16 % of HCWs were vaccinated against influenza and 21.87 % against SARS-CoV-2. Coverage changed during the 2023-2024 season to 54.11 % and 13.58 %, respectively. A regression model showed that vaccination uptake's increase was associated with the e-mail reception and with the operator being a physician vs. non-medical personnel. On the contrary, subjects who received the e-mail did not show an increased SARS-CoV-2 vaccination uptake, which was on the contrary influenced by the worker's age, sex, job title, and area of risk. Our soft-mandate intervention was effective in increasing vaccination uptake by HCWs. Communication with a trained specialist was probably useful, and the possibility to access vaccination services with dedicated appointments increased convenience. Mandatory vaccination policies and active recall seem to synergically impact vaccination uptake.

Stakeholders' experiences with school-based immunization programs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Canadian Maritimes: A qualitative study

Background

School-based immunization programs (SBIP) support access to routine vaccines for adolescents. Across Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health measures affected SBIP and vaccine uptake. The objectives of this study were to explore 1.) stakeholders' experiences with SBIP and changes to programs during COVID-19 in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and 2.) how the pandemic affected parents' and adolescents' vaccine views.

Study design

Semi-structured interviews with decision makers, healthcare providers, teachers, parents and adolescents between February-August 2023.

Methods

The COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework informed interview guides. Deductive and inductive analyses saw participant quotes mapped to relevant model components and domains by two coders. Belief statements were generated within each stakeholder group then compared to identify themes and subthemes.

Results

Participants (n = 39) identified five themes: 1) enablers to SBIP delivery, 2) barriers to SBIP delivery, 3) desired changes to SBIP delivery, 4) student anxiety, and 5) vaccination views and changes since the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health measures facilitated more space for clinics, as did taking smaller cohorts of students. School staff-healthcare provider relationships could help or hinder programs, particularly with high turnover in both professions during the pandemic. Adolescents played a passive role in vaccine decision making, with mothers often being the sole decision maker. We did not identify any changes in hesitancy towards routine vaccines since the pandemic.

Conclusions

We identified a range of barriers and enablers to SBIP, many of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Efforts are needed to ensure SBIP and catch-up programming remains accessible for all adolescents to catch-up on missed vaccines before graduation. Parents and adolescents' vaccination views suggest changes in vaccine coverage since the pandemic may be due to accessibility of services rather than vaccine hesitancy. Future research is needed to engage adolescents in their vaccine decisions.

The second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy among health care workers in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak in China exposed health care workers (HCWs) to an increased risk of infection. The acquired immunity rapidly diminishes after the previous COVID-19 vaccination and the second booster vaccination has been recommended in several countries. HCWs are a priority group for vaccination because they are at increased risk of being infected, however, a certain amount of HCWs were hesitant.

METHODS

The survey was conducted among 5805 HCWs in China from January 5 to February 9, 2023. Questionnaire included sociodemographic information, COVID-19-related variables, psychological factors, and the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influencing factors of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy.

RESULTS

42.2% of HCWs self-reported having the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy. Occupations, years of working, COVID-19 infection status were associated with less vaccine hesitancy. HCWs who had received 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to be hesitant compared to those had not received. HCWs with PTSD symptoms and anxiety symptoms were more likely to be hesitant. No relation was observed between COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy and age, marriage, salary, and perceived an increased risk of COVID-19 infection due to work (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of HCWs were hesitant to accept the second dose of the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Incorporating vaccine knowledge and new evidence into routine health educations and procedures to raise confidence and reduce complacency may be effective and feasible in promoting the vaccination and implementing future vaccination programs.

Exploring COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers in Zimbabwe: A mixed methods study

With COVID-19 no longer categorized as a public health emergency of international concern, vaccination strategies and priority groups for vaccination have evolved. Africa Centres for Diseases Prevention and Control proposed the '100-100-70%' strategy which aims to vaccinate all healthcare workers, all vulnerable groups, and 70% of the general population. Understanding whether healthcare workers were reached during previous vaccination campaigns and what can be done to address concerns, anxieties, and other influences on vaccine uptake, will be important to optimally plan how to achieve these ambitious targets. In this mixed-methods study, between June 2021 and July 2022 a quantitative survey was conducted with healthcare workers accessing a comprehensive health check in Zimbabwe to determine whether and, if so, when they had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Healthcare workers were categorized as those who had received the vaccine 'early' (before 30.06.2021) and those who had received it 'late' (after 30.06.2021). In addition, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted to understand perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Of the 3,086 healthcare workers employed at 43 facilities who participated in the study, 2,986 (97%, 95% CI [92%-100%]) reported that they had received at least one vaccine dose. Geographical location, older age, higher educational attainment and having a chronic condition was associated with receiving the vaccine early. Qualitatively, (mis)information, infection risk perception, quasi-mandatory vaccination requirements, and legitimate concerns such as safety and efficacy influenced vaccine uptake. Meeting the proposed 100-100-70 target entails continued emphasis on strong communication while engaging meaningfully with healthcare workers' concerns. Mandatory vaccination may undermine trust and should not be a substitute for sustained engagement.

Influenza immunization of healthcare personnel in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era: Still a lot to do!

Healthcare-associated influenza is frequently encountered in healthcare settings with significant morbidity and mortality among vulnerable patients, absenteeism among healthcare personnel (HCP), and interruption of healthcare services. Numerous investigations indicate that nosocomial outbreaks are often traced to HCP. Despite the international and national endorsements, seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance among HCP continues suboptimal worldwide. Infection control is the major objective for healthcare risk management in order to guarantee patient safety, limit the cost of hospitalization and assurance health management in controlling influenza seasons. Vigilance and anticipation are required as globally we are moving from a reactive COVID-19 pandemic response phase to one of planning for the co-circulation of viral respiratory infections. Declining to understand HCP perception of influenza risk and acceptance of vaccination might have impact patient safety as well as healthcare services.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in an Algerian University Teaching Hospital: A cross-sectional study

Background

The global COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted health systems, emphasizing the need for effective vaccination campaigns. However, vaccine hesitancy, particularly among healthcare workers, challenges achieving comprehensive immunization coverage. The primary objective of this study is to elucidate the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers at an Algerian University Teaching Hospital.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted at the University Teaching Hospital of Oran, Algeria, from February 17 to April 11, 2022. We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among 196 hospital staff members, including 98 physicians and 98 nurses. Factors independently associated with vaccination were identified using a multivariable logistic regression analysis, and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were provided.

Results

The COVID-19 vaccination rate among HCWs was 32.1%. Several factors were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the multivariable analysis. These include the belief that even healthy individuals should be vaccinated against COVID-19 (aOR = 3.13; 95% CI: 1.13-8.63), the perception that comprehensive vaccination coverage against COVID-19 could support the healthcare system in future epidemics (aOR = 4.15; 95% CI: 1.68-10.23), endorsement of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (aOR = 4.37; 95% CI: 1.42-13.45), and adherence to all recommended vaccines for HCWs or compliance with the recommended immunization schedules for their children (aOR = 4.75; 95% CI: 1.47-15.36).

Conclusion

This study highlights key beliefs influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers, including the necessity of vaccinating healthy individuals, the perceived importance of comprehensive vaccination in supporting the healthcare system during future epidemics, agreement with mandatory vaccination policies, and adherence to recommended vaccine schedules.

Behaviour and associated determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and advocacy: a nationwide survey of pharmacy professionals in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy poses a global challenge and is acknowledged to be a complex, multifactorial phenomenon. Of particular concern is hesitancy among health professionals, as this may also impact their advocacy roles. There is a lack of theory-based investigations of pharmacy professionals.

AIM

The study aims to determine the behaviour and associated determinants influencing pharmacy professionals' attitude towards vaccine acceptance and advocacy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 2400 pharmacists and pharmacy technicians at government, semi-government, and private community pharmacies in Qatar. Questionnaire items captured perspectives on COVID vaccine acceptance, advocacy and associated determinants based on the domains and constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed by descriptive and inferential statistics, with TDF items subjected to principal components analysis (PCA).

FINDINGS

The response rate was 38.6% (927/2400). Almost all (n = 825, 89.0%) were willing to receive the vaccine, which was higher for males (p < 0.001) and those in polyclinics (p < 0.05). PCA of acceptance items gave five components, with response to 'emotions' being most negative, associated with acceptance (p < 0.001) and more negative in females (p < 0.001). The majority (n = 799, 86.2%) agreed that it was their professional duty to advocate vaccines. PCA for advocacy items gave two components, with the most negative responses for 'professional role and identity', which were more negative for those working in hospitals (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Respondents were least positive regarding emotion-related behavioral determinants for acceptance and professional role and identity for advocacy. Behavior change technique interventions that target these issues have the potential to influence the vaccine hesitancy of pharmacy professionals and other individuals.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine confidence among primary care providers in Kazakhstan, March-April 2021

Introduction

Vaccination is a critical public health intervention, and vaccine hesitancy is a major threat. Globally, confidence in COVID-19 vaccines has been low, and rates of routine immunizations decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because healthcare providers are a trusted source of information on vaccination in Kazakhstan, it was vital to understand their knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to both routine and COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

From March to April 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional study among the healthcare providers responsible for vaccination in 54 primary care facilities in three cities in Kazakhstan. All consenting providers anonymously completed structured online questionnaires at their place of work. A provider was classified as having COVID-19 vaccine confidence if they planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine, believed that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect their community and either believed the vaccine was important to protect themselves or believed that getting a vaccine was safer than getting COVID-19. Statistical analysis included chi-square, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and Poisson regression.

Results

Of 1,461 providers, 30% had COVID-19 vaccine confidence, 40% did not, and 30% would refuse vaccination. Participants were mostly female (92%) and ≤ 35 years old (57%). Additionally, 65% were nurses, 25% were family physicians, and 10% were pediatricians. Adequate KAP for routine vaccines was low (22, 17, and 32%, respectively). Adequate knowledge was highest among pediatricians (42%) and family physicians (28%) and lowest among nurses (17%). Misconceptions about vaccines were high; 54% believed that influenza vaccines cause flu, and 57% believed that there is a scientifically proven association between vaccination and autism and multiple sclerosis. About half (45%) of the practitioners felt confident answering patient vaccine-related concerns. In adjusted models, COVID-19 vaccine confidence was positively associated with adequate knowledge of vaccines (prevalence ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.4) and adequate attitudes related to routine vaccines (3.1, 2.7-3.6).

Conclusion

Our study uncovers critical areas for interventions to improve KAP related to routine immunizations and COVID-19 vaccine confidence among providers in Kazakhstan. The complex relationship between KAP of routine vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine confidence underscores the importance of addressing vaccine hesitancy more broadly and not focusing solely on COVID-19.

The effectiveness of COVID deaths to COVID policies: A robust conditional approach

This paper examines the effectiveness of four major COVID-19 social distancing policies, (i) shelter-in-place orders (SIPO), (ii) non-essential business closures, (iii) mandatory quarantine for travelers, and (iv) bans on large gatherings, on both COVID cases and COVID deaths. Results indicate that states are highly ineffective in producing the fraction of the population that does not have COVID-19 or the fraction of the population that does not die from COVID-19. We find that having any form of social distancing policies increases the fraction of the population not considered a positive COVID-19 case by 23.5 percentage points. Results also show that having any of the four major social distancing policies reduces the fraction of the population who has died of COVID-19 by 1.3 percentage points between March 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020; during the first 100 days, effectiveness would improve by 2.1 percentage points. Evidence suggests that there is no effective uniform national COVID-19 social distancing policy. Furthermore, conditional efficiency regressions after 100 days suggest that behavioral noncompliance and premature expiration of social distancing policies both negatively impact effectiveness. Partial regression plots suggest that bans on large gatherings and the closure of non-essential businesses were the two most impactful COVID-19 social distancing policies.

Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review

Background

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.

Methods

We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.

Results

We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.

Conclusions

Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.

Exploring COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers in Zimbabwe: A mixed methods study

With COVID-19 no longer categorized as a public health emergency of international concern, vaccination strategies and priority groups for vaccination have evolved. Africa Centers for Diseases Prevention and Control proposed the '100-100-70%' strategy which aims to vaccinate all healthcare workers, all vulnerable groups, and 70% of the general population. Understanding whether healthcare workers were reached during previous vaccination campaigns and what can be done to address concerns, anxieties, and other influences on vaccine uptake, will be important to optimally plan how to achieve these ambitious targets. In this mixed-methods study, between June 2021 and July 2022 a quantitative survey was conducted with healthcare workers accessing a comprehensive health check in Zimbabwe to determine whether and, if so, when they had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Healthcare workers were categorized as those who had received the vaccine 'early' (before 30.06.2021) and those who had received it 'late' (after 30.06.2021). In addition, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted to understand perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Of the 2905 healthcare workers employed at 37 facilities who participated in the study, 2818 (97%, 95% CI [92%-102%]) reported that they had received at least one vaccine dose. Geographical location, older age, higher educational attainment and having a chronic condition was associated with receiving the vaccine early. Qualitatively, (mis)information, infection risk perception, quasi-mandatory vaccination requirements, and legitimate concerns such as safety and efficacy influenced vaccine uptake. Meeting the proposed 100-100-70 target entails continued emphasis on strong communication while engaging meaningfully with healthcare workers' concerns. Mandatory vaccination may undermine trust and should not be a substitute for sustained engagement.

The Role of Medication Beliefs in COVID-19 Vaccine and Booster Uptake in Healthcare Workers: An Exploratory Study

Illness and medication beliefs have shown to predict COVID-19 vaccination behaviour in the general population, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated in healthcare staff. This research aimed to explore the potential explanatory value of illness and medication beliefs on the COVID-19 vaccination uptake of a sample of patient-facing healthcare workers (HCWs). A web-based questionnaire-measuring beliefs about vaccinations (the BMQ), perceptions of COVID-19 (the BIPQ), vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine uptake-was targeted to HCWs via social media platforms between May-July 2022. Open text responses allowed participants to provide explanations for any delay in vaccine uptake. A total of 91 participants completed the questionnaire. Most respondents (77.1%, n = 64) had received three doses of the COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccination uptake (number of doses received) was predicted by Vaccine Concerns, Vaccine Hesitancy, and their Necessity-Concerns Differential score. Vaccine Hesitancy was predicted by Necessity, Concerns, and Overuse scores, as well as Necessity-Concerns Differential scores. Delay in Vaccine Uptake could only be predicted for Dose 3 (Booster). Qualitative data revealed that hesitant respondents were "unable to take time off work" for vaccination and that some had concerns over vaccine safety. In conclusion, illness and medication beliefs have potential value in predicting vaccine hesitancy and uptake in healthcare workers. Interventions to improve vaccination uptake in this population should address concerns about vaccine safety and releasing staff for vaccination booster appointments should be prioritised. Future research should further investigate the relationship between illness and medication beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a larger sample of healthcare workers.

COVID-19 Virus and Vaccination Attitudes among Healthcare Workers in Michigan: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Defining the characteristics of healthcare worker (HCW) attitudes toward the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine can provide insights into vaccine hesitancy. This study's goal is to determine HCWs' attitudes regarding the COVID-19 vaccination and reasons for vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study surveyed HCWs working in institutions in Saginaw, Sanilac, and Wayne counties in Michigan (N = 120) using tipping-scale questions. Analysis of variance and t-test were used to measure HCWs' attitudes toward the COVID-19 virus and vaccines.

RESULTS

Most HCWs received (95.9%) and recommended (98.3%) a COVID-19 vaccine. The top three factors that HCWs cited for recommending a COVID-19 vaccine were: (1) efficacy of the vaccine, (2) current exposure to patients with active COVID-19 infection and risk of virus spread, and (3) safety of vaccine and long-term follow-up. Female HCWs or HCWs aged 25-54 years were more concerned about contracting COVID-19. Physicians or HCWs aged 55-64 were less concerned regarding the effectiveness and side effects of the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender, age, ethnicity, provider type, and medical specialty showed statistically significant differences among COVID-19 attitudes. Focusing educational efforts on HCW demographics who are more likely to have negative attitudes can potentially decrease vaccine hesitancy.

One-Year Follow-Up of Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Anxiety among Health Workers of a French Cancer Center: The PRO-SERO-COV Study

Infection of SARS-CoV-2 among health workers (HWs) in contact with cancer patients has been a major issue since the beginning of the pandemic. We aimed to assess the serological immune status of SARS-CoV-2 infection among these HWs. A prospective cohort study was initiated in the comprehensive cancer center of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region (NA, France). Volunteer HWs working on March 2020 without active infection or symptoms of COVID-19 completed a self-questionnaire and had a blood test at inclusion, at 3 and 12 months. Positive serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined by anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and/or IgG anti-spike antibodies, except at 12 months due to vaccine. Half of the HWs were included (N = 517) and 89% were followed for three months (N = 500) and one year (N = 462). Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 3.5% (95% CI: 1.9-5.1), 6.2% (95% CI: 4.1-8.3), and 10% (95% CI: 7.2-12.7) on June-September 2020, September 2020-January 2021, and June-October 2021, respectively. At 12 months, 93.3% had detectable antibodies with 80% vaccinated in the first three months of vaccine availability. The COVID-19-free policy of the institution, respect for barrier gestures, high and early vaccination of HWs, and low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NA may explain the low rate of seropositivity among the HWs of the Institut Bergonié.

The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health workforce: A rapid review

The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant adaptations to healthcare. Provision of mental healthcare in a changing environment presented healthcare workers with unique challenges and demands, including changes in workload and expectations. To inform current and future healthcare service responses, and adaptations, the current review aimed to collate and examine the impact of the pandemic on mental healthcare workers (MHWs). We conducted a rapid systematic review to examine the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MHWs. Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline and PsycInfo and restricted to articles published from 2020. Inclusion criteria specified articles written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and that examined any outcome of the impact of COVID-19 on MHWs; 55 articles fulfilled these criteria. Outcomes were categorized into 'work-related outcomes' and 'personal outcomes'. Mental healthcare workers worldwide experienced a range of work-related and personal adversities during the pandemic. Key work-related outcomes included increased workload, changed roles, burnout, decreased job satisfaction, telehealth challenges, difficulties with work-life balance, altered job performance, vicarious trauma and increased workplace violence. Personal outcomes included decreased well-being, increased psychological distress and psychosocial difficulties. These outcomes differed between inpatient, outpatient and remote settings. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered the delivery of mental healthcare and MHWs experienced both work-related and personal adversities during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the continuation of changes introduced to healthcare in the initial stages of the pandemic, it will be important to maintain efforts to monitor negative outcomes and ensure supports for MHWs, going forward.

A Qualitative Study Exploring Motivators and Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Adults in South Africa and Zimbabwe

While vaccines are a well-established method of controlling the spread of infectious diseases, vaccine hesitancy jeopardizes curbing the spread of COVID-19. Through the Vaccine Information Network (VIN), this study explored barriers and motivators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We conducted 18 focus group discussions with male and female community members, stratified by country, age group, and—for Zimbabwe only—by HIV status. Participants’ median age across both countries was 40 years (interquartile range of 22–40), and most (65.9%) were female. We conceptualized the key themes within the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) 3C (convenience, confidence, complacency) vaccine hesitancy model. Barriers to vaccine uptake—lack of convenience, low confidence, and high complacency—included inaccessibility of vaccines and vaccination sites, vaccine safety and development concerns, and disbelief in COVID-19’s existence. Motivators to vaccine uptake—convenience, confidence, and low complacency—included accessibility of vaccination sites, user-friendly registration processes, trust in governments and vaccines, fear of dying from COVID-19, and knowing someone who had died from or become infected with COVID-19. Overall, vaccine hesitancy in South Africa and Zimbabwe was influenced by inconvenience, a lack of confidence, and high complacency around COVID-19 vaccines.

Qualitative Insights into Vaccine Uptake of Nursing Staff in Long-Term Care Facilities in Finland

Vaccine hesitancy and refusal have undermined COVID-19 vaccination efforts of nursing staff. This study aimed to identify behavioral factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among unvaccinated nursing staff in long-term care facilities (LTCF) in Finland. Methodology: The study was based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were collected through qualitative in-depth interviews among nursing staff and managers of LTCFs. The analysis was based on thematic analysis. We identified seven behavioral domains, with several themes, that reduced the staff's intention to get vaccinated: knowledge (information overload, inability to identify trustworthy information sources, lack of vaccine-specific and understandable scientific information), beliefs about consequences (incorrect perceptions about the vaccine effectiveness, and lack of trust in the safety of the vaccine), social influences (influence of family and friends), reinforcement (limited abilities of the management to encourage vaccination), beliefs about capabilities (pregnancy or desire to get pregnant), psychological factors (coping with changing opinion), and emotions (confusion, suspicion, disappointment, and fatigue). We also identified three behavioral domains that encouraged vaccine uptake: social influences (trust in health authorities), environmental context and resources (vaccination logistics), and work and professional role (professional pride). The study findings can help authorities to develop tailored vaccine promotion strategies for healthcare workers in LTCFs.