COVID-19 Vaccination Should not be Mandatory for Health and Social Care Workers

Nursing vaccine mandates: Ethically justified, an infringement on autonomy, or both?

After almost a year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare institutions in the United States announced that they would mandate COVID-19 vaccination, with medical and religious exceptions, as a term of employment. The mandates resulted in widely publicized protests from hospital staff, including some nurses, who argued that these medical institutions violated the ethical principle of autonomy. As the world enters the "post-pandemic period," decisions such as these, made during times of crisis, must be reviewed to provide clarity for when the next pandemic occurs. In this paper, we support the argument that such mandates are ethically justifiable. We explore the framework of objections that were brought forward by dissenters of this vaccine mandate. Next, we provide an analysis of conflicting ethical principles present when such mandates were deployed. Utilizing the American Nurses Association's Code of Ethics for Nurses, notably provisions 2, 3, and 6 we argue that it is an ethical duty of the nurse to be vaccinated. Specifically, we turn to provision two, which most explicitly underscores the necessity of vaccination as a function of the nurse's primary commitment to the patient. Next, we highlight the International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics which provides similar guidance internationally. Finally, we examine the applicability of the principles of public health, care ethics, and the nursing role as frameworks to underpin such mandates both for the current and for potential future pandemics, arguing that the nurse's ethical duty to be vaccinated spans these contexts.

A fair exchange: why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated

Every year, hundreds of patients in England die whilst waiting for a kidney transplant, and this is evidence that the current system of altruistic-based donation is not sufficient to address the shortage of kidneys available for transplant. To address this problem, we propose a monopsony system whereby kidney donors can opt-in to receive financial compensation, whilst still preserving the right of individuals to donate without receiving any compensation. A monopsony system describes a market structure where there is only one 'buyer'-in this case the National Health Service. By doing so, several hundred lives could be saved each year in England, wait times for a kidney transplant could be significantly reduced, and it would lessen the burden on dialysis services. Furthermore, compensation would help alleviate the common disincentives to living kidney donation, such as its potential associated health and psychological costs, and it would also help to increase awareness of living kidney donation. The proposed system would also result in significant cost savings that could then be redirected towards preventing kidney disease and reducing health disparities. While concerns about exploitation, coercion, and the 'crowding out' of altruistic donors exist, we believe that careful implementation can mitigate these issues. Therefore, we recommend piloting financial compensation for living kidney donors at a transplant centre in England.

Unraveling the association between vaccine attitude, vaccine conspiracies and self-reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination among nurses and physicians in Jordan

Background

The negative impact of vaccine conspiracies is linked with negative health behavior. The aim of the current study was to examine the association between attitudes toward booster COVID-19, influenza, and monkeypox (mpox) vaccinations with post-COVID-19 vaccine side effects, vaccine conspiracies, and attitude towards mandatory vaccination among nurses and physicians in Jordan.

Methods

A structured closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics, COVID-19 history, COVID-19 vaccine type and doses received, self-reported side effects post-COVID-19 vaccination, acceptance of booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and mpox vaccinations, attitudes towards mandatory vaccination, and beliefs in vaccine conspiracies.

Results

The study sample comprised a total of 341 participants. Acceptance of yearly booster COVID-19 vaccination was expressed by 46.6% of the sample, while 73.3% accepted seasonal influenza vaccination, and only 37.0% accepted mpox vaccination. A higher frequency of self-reported side effects following the first COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with embrace of vaccine conspiracies and vaccine type. For the second vaccine dose, a higher frequency of self-reported side effects was associated with the embrace of vaccine conspiracies, older age, and affiliation to private sector. In multinomial logistic regression analyses, the lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies was associated with lower odds of reporting side effects post-COVID-19 vaccination. The lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies and favorable attitude towards mandatory vaccination were associated with the willingness to get COVID-19, influenza, and mpox vaccinations.

Conclusion

The study findings highlighted the negative impact of embracing vaccine conspiracies on health-seeking behavior among nurses and physicians. The findings indicated that the willingness to get vaccinated was associated with lower endorsement of vaccine conspiracies. Additionally, the lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies was associated with a lower frequency of self-reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. These results emphasize the importance of addressing vaccine misinformation and promoting accurate information to ensure optimal vaccine uptake and public health outcomes.

Factors Influencing the Healthcare Workers' Willingness to Receive the COVID-19 Booster Dose in Tuscany (Italy)

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has defined vaccine hesitancy as behavior influenced by several factors, including trust in the vaccine itself or its provider or the perceived need for vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among the employees and healthcare professionals of the Central Tuscany Local Health Authority (CT-LHA) in Italy.

METHODS

From July to October 2022, a cross-sectional study was conducted. An online questionnaire was administered to 7000 employees of the CT-LHA. The questionnaire analyzed the factors that influenced receiving the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The sample was stratified by gender, age, type of occupation (healthcare or non-healthcare workers), and seniority. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded. A chi-squared test was performed through STATA. The significance level was set at 95%.

RESULTS

Of the questionnaires administered, 1885 (26.9%) questionnaires were eligible for the study. In the previous vaccination campaign, the healthcare workers (HCWs) considered the vaccine used by CT-LHA as safe, in contrast to non-healthcare workers (N-HCWs), who considered it less secure (p < 0.05). The HCWs showed a higher propensity for vaccine safety to receive the booster dose than N-HCWs. N-HCWs appeared to be less affected by an updated booster dose than HCWs (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors studied appear to influence HCWs differently from N-HCWs. Both HCWs and N-HCWs would choose an upgraded mRNA vaccine for the booster dose.

Healthcare Workers' Attitudes towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccine mandates are considered a controversial public health policy both in public debate and among healthcare workers (HCWs). Thus, the objective of this systematic review is to give a deep insight into HCWs' views and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination mandates amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was conducted between July 2022 and November 2022. Original quantitative studies that addressed the attitudes of HCWs regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates were considered eligible for this systematic review. All the included studies (n = 57) were critically appraised and assessed for risk of systematic bias. Meta-analyses were performed, providing a pooled estimate of HCWs' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine mandates for: 1. HCWs and 2. the general population.

RESULTS

In total, 64% (95% CI: 55%, 72%) of HCWs favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs, while 50% (95% CI: 38%, 61%) supported mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 is a highly controversial issue among HCWs. The present study provides stakeholders and policy makers with useful evidence related to the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs and the general population. Other: The protocol used in this review is registered on PROSPERO with the ID number: CRD42022350275.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in healthcare workers and healthcare students worldwide: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and healthcare students display high levels of vaccine hesitancy with impact on healthcare provision, patient safety, and health promotion. The factors related to vaccine hesitancy have been reported in several systematic reviews. However, this evidence needs to be synthesised, as interventions to reduce vaccination hesitancy in this population are needed.

METHODS

This Umbrella Review aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine for HCWs and healthcare students. The review was performed and reported in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institutes guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42022327354). Eight databases were searched from November 2019 to 23rd May 2022 to identify any systematic reviews that explored factors associated with hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine for HCWs or healthcare students.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies were included in the review. The majority of studies (71%) were appraised as strong or moderate quality and there was a slight degree of overlap (<5%) of primary studies between the reviews. Vaccine hesitancy was more common among HCWs and healthcare students in specific occupational roles (e.g. nurses) than others (e.g. physicians). Frequent reasons for hesitancy were related to sociodemographic factors (gender, age, ethnicity), occupational factors (COVID-19 exposure, perceived risk, mandatory vaccination), health factors (vaccination history), vaccine-related factors (concerns about safety, efficacy, side-effects, rapid development, testing, approval and distribution of the vaccine), social factors (social pressure, altruism and collective responsibility), distrust factors (key social actors, pandemic management), information factors (inadequate information and sources, exposure to misinformation).

CONCLUSION

The results from this Umbrella Review have wide-reaching implications for the research area, healthcare systems and institutions and governments worldwide. Designing tailored strategies for specific occupational groups is pivotal to increasing vaccine uptake and securing a safe healthcare provision worldwide.

Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19

We provide ethical criteria to establish when vaccine mandates for healthcare workers are ethically justifiable. The relevant criteria are the utility of the vaccine for healthcare workers, the utility for patients (both in terms of prevention of transmission of infection and reduction in staff shortage), and the existence of less restrictive alternatives that can achieve comparable benefits. Healthcare workers have professional obligations to promote the interests of patients that entail exposure to greater risks or infringement of autonomy than ordinary members of the public. Thus, we argue that when vaccine mandates are justified on the basis of these criteria, they are not unfairly discriminatory and the level of coercion they involve is ethically acceptable-and indeed comparable to that already accepted in healthcare employment contracts. Such mandates might be justified even when general population mandates are not. Our conclusion is that, given current evidence, those ethical criteria justify mandates for influenza vaccination, but not COVID-19 vaccination, for healthcare workers. We extend our arguments to other vaccines.

"I Would Rather Take the Vaccine Than Undergo Weekly Testing": Correlates of Health Workers' Support for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

This study examined the support for vaccine mandates and uptake among clinical and non-clinical staff at a tertiary hospital in northern Nigeria, focusing on variation of survey responses based on job position, socio-demographic characteristics, and perceived risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods design and deploying a pragmatic paradigm, 370 healthcare workers were administered structured questionnaires. This was followed by in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of respondents to further clarify the responses regarding support for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mandate. Findings demonstrated that less than one-half of respondents supported the COVID-19 mandate, and only one in three had received the recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses. Support for the vaccine mandate and vaccine uptake were predicted by profession, work experience, number of children, health status, and risk perception. Support for the vaccine mandate was ascribed to ethical and professional duty, whereas opposition was associated with respect for autonomy and human rights. This study documents the need to enhance support for vaccine mandates and uptake among healthcare workers through sustainable strategies, as Nigeria's healthcare workers are considered a source of trust and role models for the rest of society.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests: Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt health systems worldwide, conducting Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT) at specified intervals has become an essential part of many people's lives around the world. We identified and analyzed the academic literature on COVID-19 RAT. The Web of Science electronic database was queried on 6 July 2022 to find relevant publications. Publication and citation data were retrieved directly from the database. VOSviewer, a bibliometric software, was then used to relate these data to the semantic content from the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The analysis was based on data from 1000 publications. The most productive authors were from Japan and the United States, led by Dr. Koji Nakamura from Japan (n = 10, 1.0%). The most academically productive countries were in the North America, Europe and Asia, led by the United States of America (n = 266, 26.6%). Sensitivity (n = 32, 3.2%) and specificity (n = 23, 2.3%) were among the most frequently recurring author keywords. Regarding sampling methods, "saliva" (n = 54, 5.4%) was mentioned more frequently than "nasal swab" (n = 32, 3.2%) and "nasopharyngeal swab" (n = 22, 2.2%). Recurring scenarios that required RAT were identified: emergency department, healthcare worker, mass screening, airport, traveler, and workplace. Our bibliometric analysis revealed that COVID-19 RAT has been utilized in a range of studies. RAT results were cross-checked with RT-PCR tests for sensitivity and specificity. These results are consistent with comparable exchanges of methods, results or discussions among laboratorians, authors, institutions and publishers in the involved countries of the world.

Ethical challenges experienced by care home staff during COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Care homes have been disproportionately affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Practical challenges of enacting infection control measures in care home settings have been widely reported, but little is known about the ethical concerns of care home staff during the implementation of such measures. .

OBJECTIVES

To understand the ethical challenges perceived by care home staff during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESEARCH DESIGN

An exploratory qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

A purposive sample of 15 care home staff in different roles and ranks in Hong Kong was recruited to take part in semi-structured interviews between June and August 2020.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval for this study was obtained. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time without reprisal.

FINDINGS

Three themes were identified: unclear legitimacy regarding infection control measures, limited autonomy in choices over infection control measures and inevitable harms to residents' well-being. While the participants expected that they would have legitimated power to implement infection control measures, they were resistant when their right to self-determination of testing and vaccination was infringed. They also felt trapped between ethical duties to protect care home residents from infection risk and the anticipated detrimental effects of infection control measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study reveal tensions among the ethical obligations of care home staff in response to a public health emergency. They highlight the importance of strengthening ethical sensitivity and ethical leadership in identifying and resolving the challenges of pandemic responses.

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers-A Review

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccine have highlighted vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy among this group existed prior to the pandemic and particularly centered around influenza vaccination. Being a physician, having more advanced education, and previous vaccination habits are frequently associated with vaccine acceptance. The relationship between age and caring for patients on COVID-19 vaccination is unclear, with studies providing opposing results. Reasons for hesitancy include concerns about safety and efficacy, mistrust of government and institutions, waiting for more data, and feeling that personal rights are being infringed upon. Many of these reasons reflect previous attitudes about influenza vaccination as well as political beliefs and views of personal autonomy. Finally, several interventions to encourage vaccination have been studied, including education programs and non-monetary incentives with the most effective studies using a combination of methods.

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people's access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.