Should covid vaccination be mandatory for health and care staff?

State COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Uptake Among Health Care Workers in the US

Importance

Seventeen states introduced COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers (HCWs) in mid-2021. Prior research on the effect of these mandates was centered on the nursing home sector, and more evidence is needed for their effect on the entire HCW population.

Objective

To examine the association between state COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs and vaccine uptake in this population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This repeated cross-sectional study included biweekly, individual-level data for adults aged 25 to 64 years who were working or volunteering in health care settings obtained from the Household Pulse Survey between May 26 and October 11, 2021. Analyses were conducted between November 2022 and October 2023.

Exposure

Announcement of a state COVID-19 vaccine mandate for HCWs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

An indicator for whether a sampled HCW ever received a COVID-19 vaccine and an indicator for whether an HCW completed or intended to complete the primary COVID-19 vaccination series. Event study analyses using staggered difference-in-differences methods compared vaccine uptake among HCWs in mandate and nonmandate states before and after each mandate announcement. The sample was further stratified by the availability of regular COVID-19 testing in place of a vaccination (ie, a test-out option) and by the ages of HCWs (25-49 or 50-64 years) to examine heterogeneous associations.

Results

The study sample included 31 142 HCWs (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [10.6] years; 72.1% female) from 45 states, 16 of which introduced COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs. Results indicated a mandate-associated 3.46-percentage point (pp) (95% CI, 0.29-6.63 pp; P = .03) increase in the proportion of HCWs ever vaccinated against COVID-19 and a 3.64-pp (95% CI, 0.72-6.57 pp; P = .02) increase in the proportion that completed or intended to complete the primary vaccination series 2 weeks after mandate announcement from baseline proportions of 87.98% and 86.12%, respectively. In the stratified analyses, positive associations were only detected in mandate states with no test-out option and among HCWs aged 25 to 49 years, which suggested vaccination increases of 3.32% to 7.09% compared with baseline proportions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This repeated cross-sectional study found that state COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were associated with increased vaccine uptake among HCWs, especially among younger HCWs and those in states with no test-out option. These findings suggest the potential for vaccine mandates to further promote vaccinations in an already highly vaccinated HCW population, especially when no test-out option is in place.

COVID-19 ethics: unique aspects and a review as of early 2024

COVID-19 presents a variety of ethical challenges in a set of arenas, arenas not always considered in past pandemics. These challenges include issues related to autonomy, distributive ethics, and the establishment of policies of equity and justice. Methods are a literature review based on regular editing of an online textbook during the COVID-19 outbreak and a literature review using key ethical terms. Patients are confronted with new issues related to autonomy. Providers need to expand their concepts of ethical issues to include decisions based on proportionality and public health ethics. The public health sector needs to assess the beneficence of alternative modes of disease control. The research community needs to redefine the concept of informed consent in emergent conditions. All elements of the medical spectrum-physicians, scientists, and the community-at-large including the pharmaceutical industry-need to consider the multifaceted methods for preventing future pandemics. This will require giving particular emphasis to public health funding and ending the documented discrimination that exists in the provision of proven therapies. The developing world is especially at risk for most of the ethical issues, especially those related to equity and justice. The ethical issues associated with the COVID-19 outbreak are not unique but provide a diverse set of issues that apply to patients, providers, social groups, and investigators. The further study of such issues can help with preventing future outbreaks.

Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness.

METHODS

Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences.

RESULTS

Enablers to vaccine uptake included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.

Vaccination or NPI? A conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

This research uses discrete choice-based conjoint analysis that elicits the preference structure of German citizens when it comes to their timely intention to vaccinate. The focus is on the trade-offs between pharmaceuticals (vaccine) and "non-pharmaceutical interventions" (NPIs) such as lock-downs and social distancing measures, as well as the value of voluntary versus mandatory compliance to the citizens. Our results highlight three critical insights: (a) value of waiting: at 70% effective vaccine, 1/3 of citizens still would prefer to be vaccinated in the next 6 months rather than immediately; (b) costs of NPI constraints: an effective vaccine may come as a solution to compensate for the costs induced by invasive NPI imposed for an extended period; (c) freedom of choice: voluntary compliance is preferred by citizens over imposed measures whether it relates to vaccination choice, lock-down measures, or work location choice during the pandemic. Backing up those findings in monetary value, a quick shot of a 100% effective vaccination is estimated to be worth in the range of 11,400€. Still, the value of the shot quickly falls to no value when effectiveness drops below 50. At the same time, the cost of imposing protective rules lies in the range of 1500-2500€, depending on the rule analyzed. In comparison, the burden of extra complete lock-down and social distancing is about 775€ per citizen per month. As most current vaccines are being proven to have high efficacy, a strategy that selects the most effective vaccine candidates while emphasizing how the vaccine may stop the pain of lasting lock-downs will be appropriate to nudge the population towards vaccination. Control measures that are too restrictive may be welfare-deteriorating, but enough NPI measures must be recommended as long as vaccination adoption is not sufficiently large.

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A discussion paper

BACKGROUND

The devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.

EXCLUSION

1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.

RESULTS

The review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.

CONCLUSION

The review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

To mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.

The Italian policy of mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers: Analysis of the policy processes and preliminary outcomes

BACKGROUND

Italy experienced the first outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Europe, and was among the most hardly hit European countries. Growing evidence suggests healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection in HCWs can lead to cross-transmission and increase community transmission. Italy was the first country in Europe to introduce mandatory vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 for HCWs, on April 1, 2021.

AIM

To describe the policy processes and preliminary results of the introduction of compulsory vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for HCWs in Italy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In Italy, the adoption of the policy was possible in the context of the public health and economic crisis resulting from the pandemic, with support from the scientific community and among favorable political conditions. Preliminary data suggest the policy has so far had a positive impact on increasing vaccine uptake and lowering infection rates among HCWs. Hopefully, the lack of serious vaccine-related adverse events and the growing evidence on vaccine effectiveness will progressively strengthen vaccine confidence among HCWs. In the context of a global pandemic, the Italian experience could provide insight for policymakers in other countries considering similar policies. Further, the ethical, legal, and policy challenges raised by the current public health emergency could be used to inform future pandemic preparedness plans.

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics

BACKGROUND

At the start of 2021, oncologists lacked the necessary scientific knowledge to adapt their clinical practices optimally when faced with cancer patients refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite the marked vulnerability of these patients to severe, and even fatal forms of this new viral infectious disease. Oncologists at Foch Hospital were confronted with this phenomenon, which was observed worldwide, in both the general population and the population of cancer patients.

METHODS

Between April and November 2021, the Ethics and Oncology Departments of Foch Hospital decided to investigate this subject, through an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics. Our scientific objective was to try to identify and resolve the principal bio-ethical issues, with a view to improving clinical practices in oncology during future major pandemics of this kind, from a highly specific bio-ethical standpoint (= quality of life/survival). We used a mainly qualitative methodological approach based on questionnaires and interviews.

RESULTS

In April 2021, 29 cancer patients refused or were reluctant to be vaccinated (5.6%; 29/522). Seventeen of these patients said that making vaccination mandatory would have helped them to accept vaccination. In October 2021, only 10 cancer patients continued to maintain their refusal (1.9%; 10/522). One of the main reasons for the decrease in refusals was probably the introduction of the "pass sanitaire" (health pass) in July 2021, which rendered vaccination indispensable for many activities. However, even this was not sufficient to convince these 10 cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

We identified a key bio-ethical issue, which we then tried to resolve: vaccination policy. We characterized a major tension between "the recommendation of anti-COVID-19 vaccination" (a new clinical practice) and "free will" (a moral value), and the duty to "protect each other" (a moral standard). Mandatory vaccination, at least in France, could resolve this tension, with positive effects on quality of life (i.e. happiness), or survival, in cancer patients initially refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated, but only if collective and individual scales are clearly distinguished.

Perceived COVID-19 Vaccine Pressure in the Caribbean: Exploring a New Stressor-Strain Phenomenon in the Pandemic

This research introduced the new construct of 'perceived COVID-19 vaccine pressure' (i.e., the psychological strain associated with societal demands on vaccine taking) and examined the initial psychometric properties of a newly proposed measure. The study surveyed 411 Barbadian respondents to examine their level of perceived COVID-19 vaccine pressure using an online survey modality. The results revealed strong and robust psychometric properties for the scale and its unidimensionality. Younger and employed respondents as well as those working in the tourism and hospitality and government (public) sectors experienced the greatest internalised vaccine pressure relative to other respondent groups. Only initial/preliminary evidence of the scale's validity and reliability was revealed by this cross-sectional study. A follow-up study (using CFA on a new sample) is needed to provide stronger evidence for its validity and reliability. Understanding the dynamics of perceived or internalised vaccine pressure might help explain the positive or negative effects of societal pressure and its implications for vaccine hesitancy and other vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. The study is the first to conceptually discuss and empirically examine the mental health strain occasioned by societal demands placed on individuals to take a COVID-19 vaccine.

Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals and General Population Toward Vaccines and the Intention to Be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 in Spain

Background: To achieve herd immunity, the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine by the population, especially healthcare professionals, plays a key role. The objective of the present paper is to address the differences in attitudes among Spanish healthcare professionals compared with the general population regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This cross-sectional study included data from 2,136 adults (n = 664 healthcare professionals) from an online survey conducted from May 6 to June 9, 2021. The Vaccination attitudes examination scale was used to measure the negative attitudes toward vaccines. Four subscales: mistrust of vaccine benefit, worries about the unforeseen future effect, concerns about commercial profiteering, and preference for natural immunity were calculated. Generalized linear mixed models were conducted to study these associations. Results: Between 10.2 and 22.6% of the subjects showed high levels of negative attitudes toward vaccines. However, only 1.5% of our sample (2.1% among healthcare professionals) refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine when it was offered because they chose otherwise. Retired people showed the lowest concerns and the highest trust in vaccines. No statistically significant effects were found between working in a healthcare field and having higher positive attitudes toward vaccines. Conclusion: Low levels of rejection against the COVID-19 vaccine were identified in the present sample. However, despite being at a higher risk, health care professionals did not show higher positive attitudes toward vaccines. Furthermore, refusal percentage to vaccination was higher among healthcare professionals compared with non-healthcare professionals. Developing a strategy to increase positive attitudes against the COVID-19 vaccine should be an objective for public health policy.