Healthcare workers' (HCWs) attitudes and related factors towards COVID-19 vaccination: a rapid systematic review

A Qualitative Study of the Views of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Workers Towards COVID-19 Vaccine Education (CoVE) to Support Vaccine Promotion and Uptake

Ethnic minority healthcare workers (EMHCW) are at high risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse health outcomes, but vaccine uptake is low among ethnic minority communities, including EMHCW. We explored the views of EMHCW towards COVID-19 Vaccine Education (CoVE), a digital training resource to improve knowledge and confidence for promoting the COVID-19 vaccine. Thirty EMHCW completed CoVE, then participated in a semi-structured qualitative interview. Principles of framework analysis were used to deductively analyse data using concepts from the Kirkpatrick New World Model of training evaluation. CoVE was viewed to be engaging, accessible and relevant to EMHCW. This training increased EMHCW perceived knowledge and confidence to provide evidence-based information to others, dispel myths, and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Participants reported changes in vaccine promotion behaviours and vaccine uptake. CoVE could be used to help improve vaccine literacy among EMHCW, enhance health communications about vaccines, and ultimately help facilitate uptake of occupational vaccination programs.

Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intentions and mediating effects among older adults in Southwest China

This study examines the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intentions among Chinese residents over the age of 60, with a focus on the mediating roles of Health Beliefs and Cues to Vaccination Action in the relationship between vaccine knowledge and vaccination intentions. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving 1,305 participants from Southwest China. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified potential determinants of vaccination intention, including socioeconomic characteristics, knowledge, health beliefs, and cues to vaccination action. Furthermore, mediation analysis using the causal mediation analysis method explored the mediating effects within the knowledge-to-intention pathway. Vaccination intention and its related factors: among the 1212 elderly people included in the study, 92.9% expressed willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Main factors influencing their vaccination willingness included Residency (urban vs. rural, OR = 0.47, p < 0.01), Age (75 + vs. others, OR = 0.41, p < 0.05), Marital status (OR = 0.36, p < 0.01), Occupation ( business/service vs. others, OR = 0.33, p < 0.05), Awareness of vaccine effectiveness (OR = 1.23, p < 0.01), Cues to vaccination action (OR = 1.31, p < 0.01) and COVID-19 related knowledge (OR = 1.06, p < 0.01). The analysis revealed two significant mediators-Health Beliefs and Cues to Vaccination Action. These mediators (p<0.05 for both natural indirect effect and natural direct effect) acted along two key pathways: (1) From Knowledge of COVID-19 to Health Beliefs to Vaccination Intention: Natural Direct Effects (NDE) ranged from 0.012 to 0.016, with Natural Indirect Effects (NIE) from 0.001 to 0.003, indicating that mediators accounted for 4% to 18% of the total effect. (2) From Knowledge of COVID-19 to Cues of Vaccination Action to Vaccination Intention: NDE ranged from 0.012 to 0.016 and NIE from 0.002 to 0.003, with mediators accounting for 9% to 20% of the effect. The intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 among older adults varies significantly based on socioeconomic and health belief factors. The study identifies health beliefs and cues to action not only as direct contributors but also as crucial mediators in the pathway from knowledge to vaccination intention among older individuals. These findings can extend our understanding of the impact of sociodemographic factors and health beliefs on the COVID-19 vaccination willingness among older adults.

From obligation to action: unraveling the roles of social responsibility and prosocial tendency in shaping Chinese doctors' vaccine hesitancy

Background

The hesitation of healthcare professionals towards vaccines is becoming increasingly concerning, potentially undermining public confidence in vaccination programs. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between social responsibility, Prosocial tendency, and vaccine hesitancy among Chinese doctors, and to identify demographic factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Method

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 976 Chinese doctors. Participants completed a questionnaire to assess their sense of social responsibility, Prosocial tendency, and vaccine hesitancy. Demographic information, including age, gender, and marital status, was also collected. Correlation and mediation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between the main variables.

Results

Social responsibility was negatively correlated with vaccine hesitancy (r=-0.564, P<0.01) and positively correlated with Prosocial tendency (r=0.519, P<0.01). Prosocial tendency was negatively correlated with vaccine hesitancy (r=-0.505, P<0.01) and partially mediated the relationship between social responsibility and vaccine hesitancy. Younger age, female gender, and unmarried status were associated with higher levels of vaccine hesitancy.

Conclusion

This study emphasized the important role of social responsibility and Prosocial tendency in reducing vaccine hesitancy among Chinese doctors. The findings suggest that interventions aimed at fostering a strong sense of social responsibility and promoting Prosocial tendency may effectively address vaccine hesitancy in this population. Additionally, targeted interventions focusing on young, female, and unmarried doctors may be necessary.

Multiparametric analysis of the specific immune response against SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has killed more than 7 million people worldwide. Understanding the development of postinfectious and postvaccination immune responses is necessary for effective treatment and the introduction of appropriate antipandemic measures.

OBJECTIVES

We analysed humoral and cell-mediated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses to spike (S), nucleocapsid (N), membrane (M), and open reading frame (O) proteins in individuals collected up to 1.5 years after COVID-19 onset and evaluated immune memory.

METHODS

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells and serum were collected from patients after COVID-19. Sampling was performed in two rounds: 3-6 months after infection and after another year. Most of the patients were vaccinated between samplings. SARS-CoV-2-seronegative donors served as controls. ELISpot assays were used to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific T and B cells using peptide pools (S, NMO) or recombinant proteins (rS, rN), respectively. A CEF peptide pool consisting of selected viral epitopes was applied to assess the antiviral T-cell response. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were detected via ELISA and a surrogate virus neutralisation assay.

RESULTS

We confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces the establishment of long-term memory IgG+ B cells and memory T cells. We also found that vaccination enhanced the levels of anti-S memory B and T cells. Multivariate comparison also revealed the benefit of repeated vaccination. Interestingly, the T-cell response to CEF was lower in patients than in controls.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the importance of repeated vaccination for enhancing immunity and suggests a possible long-term perturbation of the overall antiviral immune response caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The impact of vaccine hesitancy on psychological impairment among healthcare workers in a Total Worker Health© approach

Introduction

Vaccination practice is a well-known individual protective measure for biological risk in healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic vaccine hesitancy has grown among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aims to investigate how vaccine hesitancy influences the psychological burden experienced by healthcare workers.

Methods

This study aimed to explore attitudes of HCWs in acceptance or refusal of vaccinations related to the risk of psychological impairment (PI) and describe the associated occupational factors, during the seasonal flu/COVID-19 vaccination campaign of 2022-2023. 302 HCWs were enrolled in the study. A questionnaire was self-administered, including two scales on the risk of psychological impairment (Psychological Injury Risk Indicator, PIRI) and vaccine hesitancy (Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, AVHS).

Results

PIRI scores revealed that 29.8% of participants were at risk of PI. Differences in sex, age, occupational seniority, professional category, and night shifts were found between HCWs at risk of PI and those not at risk. Females registered a four-fold higher risk than males (85.6% vs. 14.4%, χ2 = 4.450, p < 0.05). Nurses were the highest risk category, followed by physicians and technicians (54.4% vs. 30.0% vs. 12.2%, χ2 = 14.463, p < 0.001). 41.7% of participants received the flu vaccination, and 98.9% received the COVID-19 vaccine. HCWs were prone to being vaccinated to protect patients and family members. Conversely, vaccine refusal was attributed to the perception of flu vaccines as not beneficial and COVID-19 contagion at low risk. The latter was more frequently reported for HCWs at risk of PI (16.7% vs. 4.7%, χ2 = 11.882, p = 0.001). Finally, hesitant HCWs were at higher risk of psychological impairment than others.

Discussion

HCWs expressed vaccine acceptance considering their social role in the community as protectors. However, the underestimation of the risk of severity of COVID-19 was more relevant among HCWs at risk of PI than others. Psychological aspects need to be considered by healthcare providers when fighting vaccine hesitancy.

Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Providers During the First 10 Months of Vaccine Availability: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers (HCPs)-including nurses-have played important roles in the vaccination effort. It is expected that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs has numerous consequences; however, the scope of these consequences and their impacts on providers, patients, and the broader healthcare system remained unclear.

PURPOSE

To identify existing and emerging evidence to understand the state of knowledge of the consequences of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs.

METHODS

A scoping review was completed based upon the JBI scoping review methodology. The databases searched included OVID Medline, EBSCOhost CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, ProQuest APA PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The final literature search was completed on June 2, 2022. Studies were screened and retrieved based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria using Covidence reference management software. Data extraction followed criteria recommended in the JBI scoping review framework with additional relevant variables identified by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 33 sources were included in the review. Consequences of HCP COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were grouped under three themes and seven subthemes. Consequences affecting HCPs included health-related, psychosocial, and employment-related consequences. Consequences affecting patients pertained to COVID-19 vaccination communication and COVID-19 vaccination practices of HCPs. Consequences to the healthcare system involved consequences to coworkers and employment/attendance/staffing-related consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare provider COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to have numerous consequences. By understanding the scope and extent of these consequences, healthcare leaders, researchers, and HCPs can work together to protect providers, patients, and healthcare systems.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among South African health care workers

BACKGROUND

Identifying factors associated with vaccine uptake among health care workers (HCWs) remains crucial to generating evidence aimed at guiding national COVID-19 vaccination and future infectious disease outbreak strategies. This study aimed to elucidate these factors, focusing on the interplay between socio-demographic, health, knowledge, beliefs and attitudinal indicators.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional online survey administered to HCWs across South Africa between August and October 2022. Bivariate and Multivariate logistic regressions identified associations between COVID-19 vaccine uptake and demographics, occupational characteristics, general knowledge of and attitudes towards vaccination, perceived COVID-19 risk and perceived importance of COVID-19 vaccine attributes.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed high vaccine uptake rates among the sample of 5564 HCWs, with 87.6% of the sample vaccinated at the time of the study. Demographic measures significantly associated with vaccine uptake were age (P-value = 0.001), race (P-value = 0.021), religion (P-value = 0.004), and having a chronic illness (P-value <0.001). Belief and attitude measures significantly associated with vaccine uptake included: need for vaccines (P-value <0.001), perceived risk of infection (P-value = 0.001), perceived patient risk (P-value <0.001), and perceived vaccine knowledge (P-value <0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that HCWs who listed their religion as African Spirituality (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.2-0.7; P-value = 0.002) and had any occupation other than nurse or doctor (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4-0.8; P-value <0.001), were less likely to vaccinate, while HCWs who had a chronic condition (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2-2.0; P-value <0.001) were more likely to have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful insights into the factors associated with and possibly driving COVID-19 vaccine uptake among HCWs in South Africa. These results add to a limited body of knowledge on contextual dynamics associated with vaccination programmes in Africa.

COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance and Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers and the General Population: A Systematic Review and Policy Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the scientific community to find and develop a vaccine to fight the disease. However, problems with achieving high vaccine coverage have emerged, even among high-risk groups such as healthcare workers (HCWs).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine factors that influence HCW's and the general population's adherence to COVID-19 vaccination and national policies to vaccinate HCWs and other target groups.

METHODS

This study implemented a systematic review. The eligibility criterion for inclusion was being a HCW, target population for COVID-19 vaccination, or general population. Vaccination was the target intervention, and the COVID-19 pandemic was the context. We selected publications published between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2022. Qualitative synthesis used a meta-aggregation approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included in the review, with study samples varying from 48 to 5708 participants. Most of the evidence came from cross-sectional and qualitative studies. The main findings were related to vaccine hesitancy rather than acceptance. Factors associated with HCW vaccine hesitancy included subjective feelings such as safety concerns, rapid vaccine development, and insufficient testing. Countries have adopted few public policies to address this problem, and the main concern is whether to enforce vaccination and the extent to which measures are legal.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the evidence base remains weak. Skepticism, mistrust, and hesitancy toward vaccination are global issues that can jeopardize vaccination coverage.

Navigating Uncertainty with Compassion: Healthcare Assistants' Reflections on Balancing COVID-19 and Routine Care through Adversity

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems around the world. Healthcare assistants played a vital role in the provision of frontline patient care during this crisis. Despite their important contribution, there exists limited research that specifically examines the healthcare assistant's experiences and perspectives of care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored healthcare assistants' caring experiences and perspectives on resilience and self-efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. A qualitative descriptive study with semi-structured interviews was conducted with 25 healthcare assistants from public hospitals. Interview recordings were analyzed using thematic analysis. Five main themes emerged from the data: frontline reinforcement: supporting HCAs through resourcing and education amidst the COVID-19 crisis, confronting uncertainty: building personal fortitude in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, fostering collective resilience through shared support, self-efficacy as a catalyst for adaptive growth, and paving the way for transformation. These findings advocate for the resilience and self-efficacy of healthcare assistants; this may potentially strengthen healthcare system preparedness for navigating unpredictable challenges in the future.

From Crisis to Opportunity: A Qualitative Study on Rehabilitation Therapists' Experiences and Post-Pandemic Perspectives

Rehabilitation therapists (RTs) have developed substantial mental health problems since the pandemic. Our study aimed to understand the experience of COVID-19 on occupational therapists and physiotherapists practicing in Canada, how the pandemic may have affected care delivery, and to identify new learnings articulated by RTs. A qualitative descriptive study design guided data collection through one-on-one interviews, dyadic interviews, and focus groups. We recruited active RTs across Canada, advertising on professional practice networks and social media platforms and using snowball sampling. Forty-nine RTs representing seven Canadian provinces participated. The four overarching themes developed using thematic analysis were (1) navigating uncertainty along with ever-changing practices, policies, and attitudes, (2) morphing roles within a constrained system, (3) witnessing patients suffering and experiencing moral distress, and (4) recognizing the personal toll of the pandemic on self and others, as well as lessons learned. Our study demonstrated that many RTs suffered moral distress, poor mental health, and some from challenging financial situations, especially those in the private sector. They also expressed a resilient attitude in response to these stressors. Implications in the future include identifying promising communication strategies that could act as protective factors, addressing workforce constraints and diminishing resources through innovative models of care.

Healthcare workers' attitudes toward and factors influencing their acceptance of an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine: a cross-sectional study in Palestine

BACKGROUND

The emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants may necessitate an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare workers' (HCWs) acceptance of a COVID-19 yearly booster vaccine if recommended and its association with their attitudes and burnout levels.

METHODS

We used an online self-administered questionnaire to conduct a cross-sectional study of all HCWs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip of Palestine between August and September 2022. We used the Vaccination Attitudes Examination scale to assess HCWs' vaccination attitudes and the Maslach Burnout Inventory to assess work-related Burnout. In addition, we conducted logistic regression to identify factors independently associated with the acceptance of the booster vaccine.

RESULTS

The study included 919 HCWs; 52.4% were male, 46.5% were physicians, 30.0% were nurses, and 63.1% worked in hospitals. One-third of HCWs (95% CI: 30.5%-36.7%) said they would accept an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine if recommended. HCWs who are suspicious of vaccine benefits [aOR = .70; 95%CI: .65-.75] and those concerned about unforeseeable future effects [aOR = .90; 95%CI: .84-.95] are less likely to accept the booster vaccine if recommended, whereas those who receive annual influenza vaccine are more likely to get it [aOR = 2.9; 95%CI: 1.7-5.0].

CONCLUSION

Only about a third of HCWs would agree to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine if recommended. Mistrust of the vaccine's efficacy and concerns about side effects continue to drive COVID-19 vaccine reluctance. Health officials need to address HCWs' concerns to increase their acceptance of the annual vaccine if it is to be recommended.

Courage in Decision Making: A Mixed-Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Women of Reproductive Age in the U.K

COVID-19 vaccination rates are lower in women of reproductive age (WRA), including pregnant/postpartum women, despite their poorer COVID-19-related outcomes. We evaluated the vaccination experiences of 3568 U.K. WRA, including 1983 women (55.6%) experiencing a pandemic pregnancy, recruited through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app. Two staggered online questionnaires (Oct-Dec 2021: 3453 responders; Aug-Sept 2022: 2129 responders) assessed reproductive status, COVID-19 status, vaccination, and attitudes for/against vaccination. Descriptive analyses included vaccination type(s), timing relative to age-based eligibility and reproductive status, vaccination delay (first vaccination >28 days from eligibility), and rationale, with content analysis of free-text comments. Most responders (3392/3453, 98.2%) were vaccinated by Dec 2021, motivated by altruism, vaccination supportiveness in general, low risk, and COVID-19 concerns. Few declined vaccination (by Sept/2022: 20/2129, 1.0%), citing risks (pregnancy-specific and longer-term), pre-existing immunity, and personal/philosophical reasons. Few women delayed vaccination, although pregnant/postpartum women (vs. other WRA) received vaccination later (median 3 vs. 0 days after eligibility, p < 0.0001). Despite high uptake, concerns included adverse effects, misinformation (including from healthcare providers), ever-changing government advice, and complex decision making. In summary, most women in this large WRA cohort were promptly vaccinated, including pregnant/post-partum women. Altruism and community benefit superseded personal benefit as reasons for vaccination. Nevertheless, responders experienced angst and received vaccine-related misinformation and discouragement. These findings should inform vaccination strategies in WRA.

Vaccinating without complete willingness against COVID-19: Personal and social aspects of Israeli nursing students and faculty members

Soon after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, it became clear that vaccination will be the most useful tool to combat the disease. Despite the apparent safety and efficacy of the developed anti-COVID-19 vaccines, relatively high percentages of the population worldwide refused to get vaccinated, including many health workers and health students. The present cross-sectional study examined the motives, attitudes, and personal characteristics of those who did not get vaccinated against COVID-19 or vaccinated without complete willingness among nursing students and nursing faculty members in Israel (n = 472). Results show that the vast majority of the study participants (97%) received at least one dose of the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. Nearly 37% of the participants indicated that they received the vaccine without complete willingness. As compared to faculty members, nursing students reported lower trust in the efficacy of the vaccine, perceived the COVID-19 pandemic as a health threat to a lesser extent, exhibited lower institutional and personal trust, and had higher levels of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Non-Jewish participants were at risk of vaccinating without complete willingness. These findings underscore the need for developing evidence-based strategies to promote the safety and efficacy of the anti-COVID-19 vaccines in nursing schools.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 BA.1/BA.2 lineages among adults and adolescents in a multicentre primary care study, Europe, December 2021 to June 2022

BackgroundScarce European data in early 2021 suggested lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages than previous variants.AimWe aimed to estimate primary series (PS) and first booster VE against symptomatic BA.1/BA.2 infection and investigate potential biases.MethodsThis European test-negative multicentre study tested primary care patients with acute respiratory symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 in the BA.1/BA.2-dominant period. We estimated PS and booster VE among adults and adolescents (PS only) for all products combined and for Comirnaty alone, by time since vaccination, age and chronic condition. We investigated potential bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination and explored effect modification and confounding by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsAmong adults, PS VE was 37% (95% CI: 24-47%) overall and 60% (95% CI: 44-72%), 43% (95% CI: 26-55%) and 29% (95% CI: 13-43%) < 90, 90-179 and ≥ 180 days post vaccination, respectively. Booster VE was 42% (95% CI: 32-51%) overall and 56% (95% CI: 47-64%), 22% (95% CI: 2-38%) and 3% (95% CI: -78% to 48%), respectively. Primary series VE was similar among adolescents. Restricting analyses to Comirnaty had little impact. Vaccine effectiveness was higher among older adults. There was no signal of bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Confounding by previous infection was low, but sample size precluded definite assessment of effect modification.ConclusionPrimary series and booster VE against symptomatic infection with BA.1/BA.2 ranged from 37% to 42%, with similar waning post vaccination. Comprehensive data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection would help disentangle vaccine- and infection-induced immunity.

Co-Administration of Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccines: Policy Review and Vaccination Coverage Trends in the European Union, UK, US, and Canada between 2019 and 2023

Recommending co-administration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines has emerged as a strategy to enhance vaccination coverage. This study describes the policy on co-administration and uptake of influenza and COVID-19 vaccination in Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada between 2019 and 2023. We collected co-administration policy data from governmental websites, national health organizations, and newspapers. Influenza vaccination coverage among persons ≥65 years and COVID-19 vaccination coverage rates among persons ≥60 years or the general population were collected using national databases, the ECDC database, or ourworldindata.org between 2019 and 2023. Descriptive analyses were used. We collected data from 30/32 (94%) countries on vaccination policy in seasons 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with most countries (25/30 to 30/30) having policies recommending co-administration. For influenza vaccination coverage, we collected data from 29/32 (91%, 2019-2020), 28/32 (88%, 2020-2021), 27/32 (84%, 2021-2022), and 6/32 (19%, 2022-2023) countries. COVID-19 vaccination was collected from 32/32 (2020-2021), 31/32 (97%, 2021-2022), and 24/32 (75%, 2022-2023) countries. Influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was higher among countries with higher influenza vaccination coverage. By 2022-2023, all countries included implemented a policy supporting co-administration. A positive correlation existed between higher influenza vaccination coverage and higher COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Assessment of adverse events among healthcare workers following the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in Tigray, Ethiopia

Apart from the inequality in vaccination, war zones and areas where communication is disrupted are affected by myths and misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccines, heightening vaccine hesitancy. Local data on adverse events of the vaccines and their mildness can increase confidence and acceptance of the vaccines in the respective population. In areas of conflict and communication blackouts, the perception of the vaccines by health workers is of paramount importance as public health recommendations may not reach the public. Therefore, the scientific evaluation of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in such areas is invaluable. This cross-sectional, facility-based study was conducted using a structured, interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess the adverse events experienced by healthcare workers who received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. The sample was divided proportionally to the number of vaccinated healthcare workers for the different healthcare professions, and participants were then randomly selected from each profession. Prior to data collection, a pilot test was conducted with 5% of the sample size outside the selected hospital. The study was conducted using a structured questionnaire completed by an interviewer to assess adverse events in 442 healthcare workers who had received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine between July 11 and 25, 2022. The study period was from August 15 to September 15, 2022. A significant number of healthcare workers [366 (83.3%); 95% CI 79.5%, 86.5%] experienced at least one adverse event. Nearly 90% of participants reported that the adverse events were mild to moderate. Pain at the injection site [307 (69.5%); 95% CI 65.0%, 73.6%] and headache [247 (55.9%); 95% CI 51.2%, 60.4%] were the most common local and systemic adverse events, respectively. Two HCWs experienced anaphylactic reaction. Younger age was significantly associated with the occurrence of adverse events. We deciphered that the adverse events reported by the study participants were not different from the typically occurring vaccine-related adverse reactions, and therefore concluded that post-vaccination reactions in healthcare workers were minor. Although vaccination in Tigray is currently stalled due to the siege, responsible stakeholders should develop a mechanism to track population-wide adverse events once the vaccines start to rollout.

Assessment of COVID-19 vaccine take-up and its predictors among healthcare professionals in public hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Facility-based cross-sectional study

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are among the highly exposed groups for the COVID-19 pandemic and have been identified as the target population to get vaccination against the spread of the infection. Aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine take-up and its predictors among HCPs in public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2021. A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 403 randomly selected participants from October 1st to November 30, 2021. Data was entered into Epi-info version 7 and analyzed using SPSS version 25. An AOR along with a 95% confidence level was estimated, and a P value <.05 was considered to declare the statistical significance. About 71% of the participants had taken any of the COVID-19 vaccines at least once. Being married (AOR: 10.79; 95% CI: 1.32-18.05); educational status of MSc degree (AOR = 7.7; CI: 2.08-15.1.6), medical doctors/GP (AOR = 5.88; CI: 1.60-15.54), MD with MSc (AOR = 9.63; CI: 2.17-17.76), PHD (AOR = 13.33; CI: 1.23-24.21) and specialist and above 3 (AOR = 3.45; CI: 2.34-42.8) holder HCPs; perceived severity of COVID-19 infection as moderate (AOR = 0.23; CI: 0.08-0.65) and mild (AOR = 0.28; CI: 0.11-0.74) and poor knowledge toward COVID-19 vaccination (AOR = 0.03; CI: 0.01-0.12) were statistically associated. This study showed that COVID-19 vaccine take-up among HCPs was relatively low to achieve herd immunity. Participants' marital status, educational status, perception of the severity of COVID-19 infection, and level of knowledge toward COVID-19 vaccines were the predictors of the COVID-19 vaccine take-up.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

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.

Why healthcare providers are not vaccinated? A qualitative study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran

BACKGROUND

Vaccination has been effective in controlling contagious diseases, especially among high-risk groups such as medical staff. Their unwillingness to be vaccinated might adversely affect individual and public health. This study aimed to explore the factors related to the refusal of COVID-19 vaccines among health service providers.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted on 28 healthcare providers in Mashhad, Northeast of Iran from March to June 2022. The method of data collection was face-to-face interviews. The purposive method was used for sampling. Data collection continued until the saturation was reached. To analyze the data, the content analysis method was applied, and Maxqda (version 10) software was used.

RESULTS

By analyzing interview transcripts, six themes and ten sub-themes were extracted. Factors that explained employees' reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19 were the opinion of peers, lack of trust in vaccines, fear of vaccination, mistrust to the government and health authorities, low perceived risk of coronavirus disease, and the contradictions of traditional and modern medicine in their approach to controlling the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Among healthcare workers, concerns about the side effects of vaccines were the most influential factors in refusing vaccination. Providing reliable information about vaccines and their safety is key to increasing the trust of health workers in vaccination and facilitating its acceptance.

Assessment of Dyspnoea, Physical Activity, and Back Pain Levels in Students at Medical Universities after the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this research was to assess the extent of dyspnoea, physical activity (PA), and back pain complaints and the association of dyspnoea, PA, and back pain complaints with PA in post-COVID-19 students at medical universities in Poland.

METHODS

An online survey was carried out among Polish medical students (213 women and 204 men) who had had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 within the last year. The Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale was used to assess the degree of dyspnoea. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to determine the level of PA. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) were used to assess back discomfort.

RESULTS

The study group had average levels of PA, with median total activity significantly lower in women (median total activity for women was 1189 and for men was 2044, while the standard deviation for women was 1419 and for men was 1450). More than 93% of the students reported no symptoms of dyspnoea. The following results were observed for ODI (median of 1.2 for women and 1.7 for men and standard deviation of 3.1 for women and 4.0 for men) and for NDI (median of 2.8 for women and 2.5 for men, standard deviation of 4.3 for women and 4.0 for men). Cervical spine pain was more frequent and severe. There are small, statistically significant correlations between the MRC and IPAQ measures and the ODI and NDI and IPAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study group of students of medicine, dyspnoea linked with a history of COVID-19 is not an issue. Post-pandemic PA levels should be increased in this group, with particular attention to female students. Urgent measures are also needed to prevent cervical pain in students at medical universities in Poland.

The Social Ecological Model: A Framework for Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Healthcare Workers-A Scoping Review

Vaccination plays a crucial role in combating the global COVID-19 pandemic. Immunizing all healthcare workers (HCWs) is essential for increasing vaccine confidence and acceptance within the general population. Understanding the factors that hinder or facilitate vaccine uptake among HCWs is of utmost importance, considering they are among the first to be vaccinated. This review follows Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, WorldCat Discovery, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles published from 2020 to 2023. A descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis approach were employed to collect and synthesize data. Using the social-ecological model as a framework, the literature was categorized into themes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels. We reviewed a total of fifty-three published academic articles, with the majority of studies conducted in Ethiopia and Nigeria. The intention for vaccine uptake resulted in an unsatisfactory (52%) overall uptake rate among HCWs. Individual-level determinants associated with vaccine uptake included being male, middle-aged, being a physician, having a higher level of education, and having a chronic illness. This review identified significant barriers at each level, such as safety concerns, perceived scientific uncertainty, vaccine ineffectiveness, lack of trust in stakeholders, and religious beliefs. Additionally, we identified facilitators at each level, with the most common factors promoting intention to uptake being the desire to protect oneself and others and a high perceived susceptibility to contracting COVID-19. This review highlights the existence of significant barriers to vaccine uptake on the African continent. Given that HCWs play a crucial role in guiding the public's vaccination decisions, it is imperative to prioritize education and training efforts about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Applying the Hornik & Woolf Approach to Identify Messaging Themes and Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Among Federally Qualified Health Centers' Workforce in Wisconsin

The Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Wisconsin serve the most under-resourced communities in the state and are trusted sources in local communities. Although healthcare workers can be leveraged to champion COVID-19 vaccines, existing vaccine hesitancy among the FQHC workforce itself calls for research to identify promising messaging themes that can boost their vaccine confidence. In spring 2021, through a partnership with the Wisconsin Primary Health Association, we took a community-engaged approach to develop and field a survey including 46 beliefs (Ms = 1.36-4.25, SDs = 0.81-1.46, all on 5-point Likert scales) among employees of 10 out of the 17 FQHCs in Wisconsin. In total, 347 clinical team members and 349 non-clinical staff members (a) indicated their levels of (dis)agreement with all 46 belief items and (b) reported vaccine acceptance (dichotomized, acceptance = 77.6%) as well as recommendation intentions (dichotomized, yes = 73.9%). We carried out the Hornik & Woolf analyses in a multilevel logistic regression framework with bootstrapping to rank order all beliefs, segmented by subgroup and behavioral outcome. Our results suggest that communication-based interventions should promote beliefs such as those related to perceived safety and efficacy, rather than normative pressure from peers, while aiming to reduce doubts about information withholding and manipulation, the safety of the mRNA technology, the approval process, and "unnatural" ingredients in the vaccines. Subgroup-specific belief rankings are also provided. This study demonstrates the usefulness of incorporating the H&W approach into community-engaged research with local healthcare systems to improve health messaging for vaccine promotion.

Knowledge and attitude factors associated with the prevalence of Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis) booster vaccination in healthcare workers in a large academic hospital in Southern Italy in 2022: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

In Europe, there is still suboptimal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) booster coverage. This study aimed to assess coverage status, knowledge, and attitude on Tdap vaccination in healthcare workers (HcWs) of the University Hospital "Federico II" in Naples, Southern Italy, in 2022, to improve current vaccination strategies.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated anonymous questionnaire. Knowledge and attitude were measured as scores. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were employed to identify correlates of Tdap booster and knowledge and attitude toward the vaccination, as appropriate. Models were controlled for age, sex, profession, department, and job seniority.

Results

A total of 206 questionnaires were administered among HcWs, and 143 (69.4%) were medical doctors. In total, 71 (34.47%) HcWs received the Tdap booster. Those who have worked 5-9 years at the hospital had a 78% lower likelihood of being vaccinated with the Tdap booster (5-9 years-OR: 0.22, CI: 0.06 | 0.85) as compared with newly hired HcWs. No differences in the average knowledge score were found. Other healthcare workers had a lower attitude as compared to medical doctors (Other-Coef. -2.15; CI: -4.14 | -0.15) and, as compared with those who worked in a clinical department, those who worked in a diagnostic-therapeutic department or medical management had 3.1 and 2.0 lower attitude scores, on average, respectively (diagnostic-therapeutic-Coef. -3.12, CI: -5.13 | -1.12; public health-Coef. -1.98, CI: -3.41 | -0.56).

Discussion

The study findings support the necessity to implement public health strategies and improve knowledge and attitude toward vaccinations and specifically highlight the importance of Tdap booster every 10 years as a prevention tool to protect high-risk populations.

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.

Mental health experiences of HIV/TB healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic - lessons for provider well-being and support from a qualitative study in seven South African provinces

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has substantially reshaped health service delivery. Healthcare workers have had to serve more clients, work longer shifts, and operate in conditions of uncertainty. They have experienced multiple stressors related to the additional 'labour of care', including managing the frustration of inadequate therapeutic or symptom relief options, witnessing clients dying, and having to give this news to clients' family members. Ongoing psychological distress among healthcare workers can severely undermine performance, decision-making and well-being. We sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health experiences of healthcare workers delivering HIV and TB services in South Africa.

METHODS

We used a pragmatic and exploratory design to understand HCWs' mental health experiences with in-depth qualitative data. We implemented the study in ten high HIV/TB burden districts across seven of South Africa's nine provinces among healthcare workers employed by USAID-funded implementing partners. We conducted in-depth interviews (virtual) with 92 healthcare workers across 10 cadres.

RESULTS

Healthcare workers reported experiencing a range of extreme and rapidly fluctuating emotions because of COVID-19 that negatively impacted on their well-being. Among these, many healthcare workers report experienced a great deal of guilt at their inability to continue to provide quality care to their clients. In addition, a constant and pervasive fear of contracting COVID-19. Healthcare workers' stress coping mechanisms were limited to begin with, and often further interrupted by COVID-19 and non-pharmaceutical response measures e.g., 'lockdowns'. Healthcare workers reported a need for greater support for managing the everyday burden of work - not only when experiencing a mental well-being 'episode'. Further, that whenever they were exposed to stressor events, e.g., supporting a child living with HIV who reports sexual abuse to the healthcare worker, that this this would trigger additional support interventions and not rely on the healthcare worker seeking this out. Further, that supervisors spend more effort demonstrating appreciation toward staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 epidemic has added significant mental health burden for healthcare workers in South Africa. Addressing this requires broad and cross-cutting strengthening of everyday support for healthcare workers and centring staff's mental well-being as core to delivering quality health services.

The determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention: a meta-review

Background

A large number of systematic reviews have been published that synthesized various determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention (CVI). However, they reported inconsistent evidence. Therefore, we conducted a meta-review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to provide a comprehensive synthesis of factors influencing CVI.

Methods

This meta-review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for systematic reviews published from 2020 to 2022 that examined the determinants of CVI. AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal tool was used to ensure the quality of included reviews, and ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias.

Results

Globally, the average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 56.97%. We identified 21 main determinants of CVI: socio-demographic, geographical location, social, political, government role, study timeline, attitude, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control, norms, trust, conspiracy theory/propaganda/misinformation, knowledge, information and communication, vaccination recommendation, vaccination history, history of COVID-19 infection, and health status and well-being.

Conclusions

These results suggest that COVID-19 vaccination intention is a complex process and is affected by numerous multidimensional factors. Therefore, integrated communication strategies and multifaceted interventions may be effective for improving vaccination intention against COVID-19.

How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?

People's willingness to vaccinate is critical to combating the COVID-19 pandemic. We devise a representative experiment to study how the design of the vaccine approval procedure affects trust in newly developed vaccines and consequently public attitudes towards vaccination. Compared to an Emergency Use Authorization, choosing the more thorough Conditional Marketing Authorization approval procedure increases vaccination intentions by 13 percentage points. The effects of the increased duration of the approval procedure are positive and significant only for Emergency Use Authorization. Treatment effects do not differ between relevant subgroups, such as respondents who had (did not have) COVID-19, or between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents. Increased trust in the vaccine is the key mediator of treatment effects on vaccination intentions.

COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions among Ebola-Affected Communities in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2021

Populations affected by humanitarian crises and emerging infectious disease outbreaks may have unique concerns and experiences that influence their perceptions toward vaccines. In March 2021, we conducted a survey to examine the perceptions toward COVID-19 vaccines and identify the factors associated with vaccine intention among 631 community members (CMs) and 438 healthcare workers (HCWs) affected by the 2018-2020 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of vaccine intention. Most HCWs (81.7%) and 53.6% of CMs felt at risk of contracting COVID-19; however, vaccine intention was low (27.6% CMs; 39.7% HCWs). In both groups, the perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, general vaccine confidence, and male sex were associated with the intention to get vaccinated, with security concerns preventing vaccine access being negatively associated. Among CMs, getting the Ebola vaccine was associated with the intention to get vaccinated (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05-1.94). Among HCWs, concerns about new vaccines' safety and side effects (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.91), religion's influence on health decisions (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.61), security concerns (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.74), and governmental distrust (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.70) were negatively associated with vaccine perceptions. Enhanced community engagement and communication that address this population's concerns could help improve vaccine perceptions and vaccination decisions. These findings could facilitate the success of vaccine campaigns in North Kivu and similar settings.

Identifying H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among health care providers: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to describe and map the evidence on COVID-19 and H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Australia.

INTRODUCTION

Since 2009, we have experienced two pandemics: H1N1 "swine flu" and COVID-19. While severity and transmissibility of these viruses varied, vaccination has been a critical component of bringing both pandemics under control. However, uptake of these vaccines has been affected by vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The vaccination behaviors of health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, are of particular interest as they have been priority populations to receive both H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Their vaccination views could affect the vaccination decisions of their patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they identified reasons for COVID-19 or H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among physicians, nurses, or pharmacists from the included countries. Published and unpublished literature were eligible for inclusion. Previous reviews were excluded; however, the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched to identify additional studies for inclusion.

METHODS

A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier databases was conducted April 28, 2021, to identify English-language literature published from 2009 to 2021. Gray literature and citation screening were also conducted to identify additional relevant literature. Titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate by 2 trained reviewers. Data were extracted in duplicate using a structured extraction tool developed for the review. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third team member. Data were synthesized using narrative and tabular summaries.

RESULTS

In total, 83 articles were included in the review. Studies were conducted primarily across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The majority of articles (n=70) used cross-sectional designs to examine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake of H1N1 (n=61) or COVID-19 (n=22) vaccines. Physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students were common participants in the studies; however, only 8 studies included pharmacists in their sample. Across health care settings, most studies were conducted in urban, academic teaching hospitals, with 1 study conducted in a rural hospital setting. Concerns about vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, and perceived low risk of contracting H1N1 or COVID-19 were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy or refusal across both vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased interest and attention on vaccines in recent years, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, more research that examines vaccine hesitancy or refusal across different health care settings and health care providers is warranted. Future work should aim to utilize more qualitative and mixed methods research designs to capture the personal perspectives of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and consider collecting data beyond the common urban and academic health care settings identified in this review.

Individual and Work-Related Characteristics Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Status among Ohio Nurses

Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine by nurses lags behind that of other health care professionals with minimal empirical evidence to understand this phenomenon. In this secondary analysis, we examined nurses' individual and work-related characteristics and their association with COVID-19 vaccination status. Alumni of three Ohio nursing colleges and members of a professional organization were invited to complete questionnaires from June through August 2021. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between nurse characteristics and vaccination status. Among 844 respondents, 754 (80.30%) had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Older age, having a bachelor's degree or higher, and working in critical care were associated with vaccination. Providing direct care for COVID-19 patients in the last 7 days and a higher perception of one's work being affected by COVID-19 were significantly associated with being vaccinated, whereas prior COVID-19 infection was inversely associated with vaccination status. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses is influenced by a host of factors related to virus knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions. Awareness of these factors can aid the development of interventions to increase nurses' acceptance of vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health workers in rural Uganda: A mixed methods study

Background

COVID-19 vaccination is the latest preventive intervention strategy in an attempt to control the global pandemic. Its efficacy has come under scrutiny because of break through infections among the vaccinated and need for booster doses. Besides, although health workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccine in most countries, anecdotal evidence points to high levels of reluctance to take the vaccine among health workers. We assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health workers in Dokolo district, northern Uganda.

Methods

This was a mixed-method, cross-sectional descriptive study. A customised self-administered data collection tool was used to collect quantitative data on characteristics, vaccination status and factors for or rejection of vaccine uptake. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between selected exposures and vaccine hesitancy using Stata version 15. Conversely, qualitative data were collected using key informant interviews (KIIs) among 15 participants that were purposively selected. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis with the help of NVivo 12.0.

Results

Of the 346 health workers enrolled, (13.3% [46/346]) were vaccine hesitant. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy included fear of side effects (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 2.55; 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 1.00, 6.49) and health workers' lack of trust in the information provided by health authorities (AOR: 6.74; 95% CI: 2.43, 18.72). Similar factors were associated with vaccine hesitancy when we used the vaccine hesitancy score. Fear of side effects, distrust in vaccine stakeholders, and lack of trust in the vaccine were barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among health workers.

Conclusion

A small proportion of health workers were found to be hesitant to take the COVID-19 vaccine in this study. The paucity of COVID-19 vaccine safety information, which eroded the health workers' trust in the information they received on the vaccine, was responsible for health workers hesitancy to take up the vaccine in Uganda.

A Qualitative Study of Home Health Aides' Perspectives towards COVID-19 Vaccination

Home health aides provide care to homebound older adults and those with chronic conditions. Aides were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccines when they became available. We examined aides' perspectives towards COVID-19 vaccination. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 56 home health aides at a large not-for-profit home care agency in New York City. Results suggested that aides' vaccination decisions were shaped by (1) information sources, beliefs, their health, and experiences providing care during COVID-19; (2) perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19; (3) perceived benefits of vaccination including protection from COVID-19, respect from colleagues and patients, and fulfillment of work-related requirements; (4) perceived barriers to vaccination including concerns about safety, efficacy, and side effects; and (5) cues to action including access to vaccination sites/appointments, vaccination mandates, question and answer sessions from trusted sources, and testimonials. Providing tailored information with support to address vaccination barriers could lead to improved vaccine uptake.

Evidence-based policies in public health to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

A fundamental basis for effective health-related policymaking of any democratic nation should be open and transparent communication between a government and its citizens, including scientists and healthcare professionals, to foster a climate of trust, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign. Since misinformation is a leading cause of vaccine hesitancy, open data sharing through an evidence-based approach may render the communication of health strategies developed by policymakers with the public more effective, allowing misinformation and claims that are not backed by scientific evidence to be tackled. In this narrative review, we debate possible causes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and links to the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic. We also put forward plausible solutions as recommended in the literature.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Ethiopia in 2021: a multicenter cross-sectional study

Introduction

Worldwide, hesitancy to be immunized against SARS-CoV-2 is the most common barrier to reducing COVID-19 incidence. Our study investigated determinants for hesitancy and will be helpful to community mobilizers, health professionals and policymakers.

Objective

To assess the prevalence and determinants of hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among patients attending public hospitals in South Gondar zone, Ethiopia.

Methods

A multicenter facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 November to 30 December 2021 to assess the prevalence and determinants of hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination. Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression methods were employed using SPSS 23. Significance level was examined using an odds ratio at 95% CI. Multi-collinearity and model fitness were also checked.

Results

A total of 415 participants were included in the study, with a questionnaire response rate of 100%. The prevalence of hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination was 46.02%. Age of >49 years, rural residency, fear of the adverse effects of the vaccines, myths about vaccine ineffectiveness and poor practices in COVID-19 prevention were the most common determinants of hesitancy.

Conclusions

Despite increased global morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19, the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy is still high. Therefore, it is important to create awareness in highly hesitant groups.

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.

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in South Africa

Healthcare workers (HCWs) were the first population group offered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in South Africa because they were considered to be at higher risk of infection and required protecting as they were a critical resource to the health system. In some contexts, vaccine uptake among HCWs has been slow, with several studies citing persistent concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. This study aimed to determine vaccine uptake among HCWs in South Africa whilst identifying what drives vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. We adopted a multimethod approach, utilising both a survey and in-depth interviews amongst a sample of HCWs in South Africa. In a sample of 7763 HCWS, 89% were vaccinated, with hesitancy highest among younger HCWs, males, and those working in the private sector. Among those who were hesitant, consistent with the literature, HCWs raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Examining this further, our data revealed that safety and effectiveness concerns were formed due to first-hand witnessing of patients presenting with side-effects, concern over perceived lack of scientific rigor in developing the vaccine, confidence in the body's immune system to stave off serious illness, and both a general lack of information and distrust in the available sources of information. This study, through discursive narratives, provides evidence elucidating what drives safety and effectiveness concerns raised by HCWs. These concerns will need to be addressed if HCWs are to effectively communicate and influence public behaviour. HCWs are key role players in the national COVID-19 vaccination programme, making it critical for this workforce to be well trained, knowledgeable, and confident if they are going to improve the uptake of vaccines among the general population in South Africa, which currently remains suboptimal.

Determinants of Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination in Healthcare and Public Health Professionals: A Review

Vaccinations of healthcare workers (HCWs) aim to directly protect them from occupational diseases, and indirectly protect their patients and communities. However, studies increasingly highlight that HCWs can be vaccine hesitant. This review aims to analyze HCWs' and public health professionals' sentiments toward COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) vaccination and determinants across different countries. A search strategy was conducted in PubMed using keywords such as "COVID-19", "sentiment/acceptance", "healthcare workers", "vaccine hesitancy", and "influenza". A total of 56 articles were selected for in-depth analyses. The highest COVID-19 vaccination uptake was found in an Italian study (98.9%), and the lowest in Cyprus (30%). Older age, male gender, the medical profession, higher education level, presence of comorbidities, and previous influenza vaccination were associated with vaccine acceptance. Factors for low acceptance were perceived side effects of the vaccine, perceived lack of effectiveness and efficacy, and lack of information and knowledge. Factors for acceptance were knowledge, confidence in the vaccine, government, and health authorities, and increased perception of fear and susceptibility. All studies focused on healthcare providers; no studies focusing on public health professionals' sentiments could be found, indicating a gap in research that needs to be addressed. Interventions must be implemented with vaccination campaigns to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Psychosocial Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece

An understanding of the factors associated with the COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women is paramount to persuade women to get vaccinated against COVID-19. We estimated the vaccination rate of pregnant women against COVID-19 and evaluated psychosocial factors associated with vaccine uptake among them. We conducted a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample. In particular, we investigated socio-demographic data of pregnant women (e.g., age, marital status, and educational level), COVID-19 related variables (e.g., previous COVID-19 diagnosis and worry about the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines), and stress due to COVID-19 (e.g., danger and contamination fears, fears about economic consequences, xenophobia, compulsive checking and reassurance seeking, and traumatic stress symptoms about COVID-19) as possible predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Among pregnant women, 58.6% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. The most important reasons that pregnant women were not vaccinated were doubts about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines (31.4%), fear that COVID-19 vaccines could be harmful to the fetus (29.4%), and fear of adverse side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (29.4%). Increased danger and contamination fears, increased fears about economic consequences, and higher levels of trust in COVID-19 vaccines were related with vaccine uptake. On the other hand, increased compulsive checking and reassurance seeking and increased worry about the adverse side effects of COVID-19 vaccines reduced the likelihood of pregnant women being vaccinated. An understanding of the psychosocial factors associated with increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women could be helpful for policy makers and healthcare professionals in their efforts to persuade women to get vaccinated against COVID-19. There is a need for targeted educational campaigns to increase knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy.

Strategic silences, eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients

BACKGROUND

Polarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients.Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage.

METHODS

Interviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients.

RESULTS

Most participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others' openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments.

DISCUSSION

Belgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in "strategic silences" around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium's, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake among Health Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Ghana

COV-2 SARs has disproportionately affected low- and middle-income countries such as Ghana, where the healthcare system was not prepared enough to provide care, drugs, and equipment. This study was carried out to assess predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health professionals in the Bono region of Ghana. A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 424 health professionals recruited through simple random sampling. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were utilized to identify the predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance presented as an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All respondents had heard about the COVID-19 vaccine. The most common source of information was the media (45.8%). The proportion of health professionals who accepted the COVID-19 vaccine was 73.6%. Among those who did not take the vaccine, 64.3% were willing to take it in the future. The key predictors of taking the COVID-19 vaccine included: age 25 to 45 years (AOR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.14-3.35), age older than 45 years (AOR = 5.30, 95% CI: 2.59-10.87), males (AOR = 4.09, 95% CI: 2.34-7.15), Christians (AOR = 3.10, 95% CI: 1.44-7.72), and at least three years of experience (AOR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.033-2.93). Reasons for not taking vaccines included: vaccines were rapidly developed and approved (41.0%), immediate side effects (39.2%), and unforeseen future effects (37.5%). This study showed that most participants had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, and most of those hesitant about the vaccine were willing to receive it in the future. This is a positive finding for policy makers since it reflects that fewer resources will be needed for behavioural change initiatives. In addition, it would present a chance to focus on minority individuals who are unwilling to take the vaccine and offer targeted community mobilisation.

Vaccine hesitancy educational tools for healthcare providers and trainees: A scoping review

In the era of vaccine hesitancy, highlighted by the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic, there is an acute need to develop an approach to reduce and address apprehension towards vaccinations. We sought to map and present an overview of existing educational interventions for healthcare providers (HCPs) on strategies to engage in effective vaccine discussion. We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology framework in this scoping review. We searched five relevant databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) and grey literature through the Google search engine using keywords and subject headings that were systematically identified. We identified 3384 citations in peer-reviewed literature and 41 citations in grey literature. After screening for our inclusion criteria, we included 28 citations from peer reviewed literature and 16 citations from grey literature for analysis. We identified a total of 41 unique education interventions. Interventions were available from multiple disciplines, training levels, clinical settings, and diseases/vaccines. Interventions predominantly centered around two foci: knowledge sharing and communication training. Most interventions identified from peer-reviewed literature were facilitated and were applied with multiple modes of delivery. Interventions from grey literature were more topical and generally self-directed. We identified several gaps in knowledge. Firstly, accessibility and generalizability of interventions was limited. Secondly, distribution of interventions did not adequately address nursing and pharmacy disciplines, and did not cover the breadth of medical specialties for whom vaccine discussions apply. Thirdly, no interventions addressed self monitoring and the clinicians' recognition and management of emotions during difficult conversations. There is a need to address this gap and provide available, credible and comprehensive educational interventions that will support our healthcare providers in effective communication with vaccine hesitant patients.

The effect of altruism on COVID-19 vaccination rates

BACKGROUND

After the emergence of the first vaccines against the COVID-19, public health authorities have promoted mass vaccination in order to achieve herd immunity and reduce the effects of the disease. Vaccination rates have differed between countries, depending on supply (availability of resources) and demand (altruism and resistance to vaccination) factors.

METHODS

This work considers the hypothesis that individuals' health altruism has been an important factor to explain the different levels of vaccination between countries, using the number of transplants as a proxy for altruism. Taking European Union's countries to remove, as far as possible, supply factors that might affect vaccination, we carry out cross-sectional regressions for the most favorable date of the vaccination process (maximum vaccination speed) and for each month during the vaccination campaign.

RESULTS

Our findings confirm that altruism has affected vaccination rates against the COVID-19. We find a direct relationship between transplants rates (proxy variable) and vaccination rates during periods in which the decision to be vaccinated depended on the individual's choice, without supply restrictions. The results show that other demand factors have worked against vaccination: political polarization and belonging to the group of countries of the former Eastern bloc.

CONCLUSIONS

Altruism is a useful tool to define future vaccination strategies, since it favors the individuals' awareness for vaccination.

Determinants of healthcare workers perceptions, acceptance and choice of COVID-19 vaccines: a cross-sectional study from the United Arab Emirates

Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among health-care workers (HCWs) is crucial for controlling the pandemic and ensuring HCW and patient safety. Information on the acceptance of different COVID-19 vaccines is lacking. Despite the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having vaccinated most of its population, vaccine acceptance still raises concerns. This study explores COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, vaccine choice, and associated factors among HCWs in the UAE. An online national cross-sectional study was conducted among 517 HCWs. Acceptance and choice of COVID-19 vaccines were assessed, and logistic regression analysis identified predictors for vaccine acceptance. More than half (58%) of HCWs were willing to take the vaccine and give it to their family. Reasons for taking the vaccine were concerns for families contracting COVID-19 (67%) and social responsibility (64%). Reasons for refusals included concerns with side-effects (61%). Most HCWs knew of the Pfizer (79%) and Sinopharm (57%) vaccines; however, acceptance was higher for Pfizer (35%) and AstraZeneca (21%) vaccines. Being male and being influenza vaccinated predicted willingness to take the vaccine (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI:1.34-4.08; p ≤ 0.001) and (aOR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.29-3.51; p ≤ 0.001), respectively. HCWs who expressed concerns with inadequate safety data were less likely to take the vaccine (aOR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.10-0.30; p ≤ 0.001). Additionally, side effects, perception of risk, and level of trust of company and country of manufacture predicted acceptance and choice of vaccines. Effective vaccine policy campaigns to improve acceptance should target HCW's knowledge and awareness of perceived risks of COVID-19, safety data, social responsibility, and individual preferences for vaccine choice.

Healthcare workers' perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and boosters for themselves, their patients, and their communities: a mixed methods study

Aim

To examine experiences and attitudes of a diverse sample of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers regarding COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for themselves, their patients, and their communities.

Subject and methods

We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed methods study; 52 healthcare workers participated in qualitative interviews between April 22 and September 7, 2021, and 209 healthcare workers completed surveys between February 17 and March 23, 2022. Interviews and survey questions asked about personal attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and boosters and experiences discussing vaccination with patients.

Results

Participants were predominantly White (56% and 73%, respectively) and female (79% and 81%, respectively). Factors motivating healthcare workers to take the vaccine were the belief that vaccination would protect themselves, their families, patients, and communities. Healthcare workers were accepting of and had high receipt of the booster, though some had diminished belief in its effectiveness after becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 after initial vaccination. Race related mistrust, misinformation related to vaccine safety, and concerns about vaccine effects during pregnancy were the most common barriers that providers encountered among their patients and communities.

Conclusions

Healthcare workers' primary motivation to receive COVID-19 vaccines was the desire to protect themselves and others. Healthcare workers' perception was that concerns about safety and misinformation were more important barriers for their patients than themselves. Race-related medical mistrust amplified concerns about vaccine safety and hindered communication efforts.

Treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and cross-infection in dental clinics in Korea

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who visited dental clinics for treatment and to analyse the occurrence of additional COVID-19-confirmed cases according to the type of dental treatment and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in November 2021 via telephone, and written questionnaires were administered to dental hygienists working at the 24 dental clinics selected for the study, visited by patients with COVID-19. The survey focused on the visit date, the treatment received, whether or not the dental personnel wore PPE while treating the patient, and how the dental clinic and the public health centre with jurisdiction over the clinic responded after the patient's visit.

RESULTS

Additional confirmed cases occurred in two of the 24 dental clinics included. In both cases, scaling was performed, dental personnel did not use a face shield, and patients with COVID-19 were asymptomatic. In 14 of the 22 dental clinics where additional confirmed cases did not occur, the dental personnel did not use face shields, and in 10 clinics, the dental personnel wore dental masks but not a KF94 mask. Based on these findings, which were obtained before the advent of the omicron variant, COVID-19 cross-infection did not appear to be high in dental clinics.

CONCLUSION

The rate of COVID-19 cross-infection before the advent of the omicron variant appeared to be low in dental clinics in Korea. Therefore, patients have no reason to delay necessary dental treatment if dental personnel put effort into wearing PPE.