Willingness, beliefs, and barriers regarding the COVID-19 vaccine in Saudi Arabia: a multiregional cross-sectional study

Evaluation of fear and stress levels and methods of coping with stress among parents having children with chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the fear and stress levels of parents having children with chronic disease and their methods to cope with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This descriptive and correlation study was conducted with the participation of 390 parents with and without children suffering from chronic diseases. Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCS), Parenting Stress Index (PSI-SF), and Coping Response Inventory (CRI) were used to collect data. In the data analysis, Kurtosis and Skewness coefficients were used to check the assumption of normal distribution, t-test was used to compare two independent groups and Pearson correlation analysis was used to make relational inferences.

RESULT

It was found that 84.9% (n = 331) of the parents were mothers and 15.1% (n = 59) were fathers. The FCS mean score of the parents having children with chronic diseases was 21.52 ± 5.07, their PSI-SF mean score was 68.27 ± 25.56, and their CRI mean score was 96.97 ± 15.12. For the parents having children without chronic diseases, the FCS mean score was 18.10 ± 5.80, the PSI-SF mean score was 68.75 ± 23.43, and the CRI mean score was 94.77 ± 15.08.

CONCLUSION

It was determined that parents having children with chronic diseases had higher levels of COVID-19 fear during the pandemic than parents having child without chronic diseases, but their stress levels and CRI mean scores were similar.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

It is important for nurses to take into account the feelings of fear and stress experienced by parents due to the COVID-19 pandemic and provide coping methods.

Factors Underlying Vaccine Hesitancy and Their Mitigations in Saudi Arabia: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern in Saudi Arabia, impacting even well-educated parents. The decision-making process involves various factors such as accessibility, trustworthy information, and the influence of social networks, reflecting a complex interplay of emotional, cultural, social, spiritual, and political dimensions.

OBJECTIVE

This review seeks to evaluate the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy, identify contributing factors, and explore potential solutions to enhance immunization rates. This review aligns with global concerns, as the World Health Organization has identified vaccine hesitancy as a top global health threat.

METHODS

Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) criteria for comprehensive assessment. We will conduct a thorough search across various databases, encompassing a wide range of vaccines, and pay special attention to vaccination campaigns and refusals. Inclusion criteria involve descriptive, observational, and analytical studies focusing on factors influencing vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. The study will use the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool for quality assessment and perform a narrative synthesis to summarize findings thematically.

RESULTS

This systematic review is expected to unveil the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy in diverse populations in Saudi Arabia, shedding light on cultural, religious, and social factors contributing to hesitancy. It aims to assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies, enable regional and global comparisons, and provide implications for tailored vaccination policies. Additionally, the review may pinpoint research gaps, guiding future investigations to address and mitigate vaccine hesitancy effectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are expected to have direct policy implications and guide interventions to strengthen vaccination programs and improve public health outcomes.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/54680.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 among Parents for Their Children in Middle Eastern Countries-A Systematic Review

The current systematic review presents COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among parents for their children in Middle Eastern countries. Moreover, the vaccine acceptance rate of parents from the Middle East and the factors effecting the acceptance rate were reviewed and summarized. For this systematic review, basic electronic academic databases (Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest, Web of Science and PubMed) were used for the search, along with a manual search on Google Scholar. This systematic review was conducted by following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)" guidelines. Moreover, utilizing the framework of the PECO-S (Population Exposure Comparison Outcome Study design), various observational studies were recruited for this review. Out of 2123 studies, 25 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the current review. All of the included studies were about parental vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 in Middle Eastern countries and published during 2020-2022. Overall, 25 research papers comprising 10 different Middle Eastern countries with 33,558 parents were included. The average age of parents was 39.13 (range: 18-70) years, while the mean age of children was 7.95 (range: 0-18) years. The overall hesitancy rate was 44.2% with a SD of ± 19.7. The included studies presented enhanced COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among parents in Middle Eastern countries. The lower vaccine acceptance rate among parents was mainly because of a fear of the potential side effects. Furthermore, the lack of information regarding vaccine safety and efficacy, the fear of unreported side effects and concerns about the authenticity of vaccine development and preparation were the predictors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Middle Eastern countries.

Hesitancy toward vaccination against COVID-19: A scoping review of prevalence and associated factors in the Arab world

Despite widespread availability of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), its uptake in many Arab countries is relatively low. This literature review aimed to scope evidence on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (VH) in the Arab world. A total of 134 articles reporting prevalence of COVID-19 VH and associated factors, conducted in any of the 22 Arab League countries, were reviewed. COVID-19 VH prevalence ranged from 5.4% to 83.0%. Female gender, young age, low education level and lack of previous influenza vaccine uptake were most commonly reported to be associated with COVID-19 VH. The most-reported personal concerns contributing toward VH were related to the rapid development, safety and side effects of vaccine, as well as an overall lack of trust in government policies toward pandemic control and widespread conspiracy theories. Tailored interventions to enable the distribution of trusted information and enhance public acceptance of immunization are warranted.

COVID-19 Booster Doses: A Multi-Center Study Reflecting Healthcare Providers' Perceptions

(1) Background: During 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was threatening healthcare services and workers, and acquiring immunity was an option to stop or limit the burden of this pandemic. Herd immunity was a top priority worldwide as the virus was spreading rapidly. It was estimated that 67% of the total global population should be immunized against COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. The aim of the current study is to investigate different perceptions of healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt using an online survey in an attempt to evaluate their awareness and concerns regarding new variants and booster doses. (2) Methods: This study conducted a survey on healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt about their perception and concerns on the COVID-19 vaccines. (3) Results: The study found that out of 389 healthcare workers 46.1% of the physicians were not willing to take the booster doses (p = 0.004). Physicians also did not support taking the COVID-19 vaccine as an annual vaccine (p = 0.04). Furthermore, to assess the association between the type of vaccine taken with the willingness of taking a booster vaccine, healthcare workers beliefs on vaccine effectiveness (p = 0.001), suspension or contact with patients (p = 0.000), and infection after COVID-19 vaccination (p = 0.016) were significant. (4) Conclusion: Knowledge about vaccine accreditation and regulation should be dispersed more widely to ensure that the population has a positive perception on vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Awareness and Acceptance for COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination among Residents of Saudi Arabia: Findings of a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

In the global effort to combat SARS CoV2 infection, adoption of the vaccination has been an essential component. The goal of this research was to determine the quality of web-based information gathered during COVID-19 and participants' awareness and acceptance for the booster dose for COVID-19.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was carried out to gauge interest in and willingness for a booster dose, as well as the satisfaction with the availability and accuracy of Internet resources. This study included 631 people from the cities of Riyadh, Al Majma'ah, Al Ghat, and Zulfi in the Riyadh Area. Chi-square and Fischer's exact tests, with a 95% confidence interval, and a threshold of p < 0.05, were used to analyze the significance of associations between variables.

RESULTS

Out of 631 respondents, 347 people who reported willingness to receive the immunization were women (319, 91.9%), with only 28 (8.1%) being men. There was a statistically significant correlation between individuals who worried about booster dosage adverse effects and those who did not receive the immunization. Knowledge of the efficacy of the vaccine, confidence in the capacity of the vaccine to avert problems, and willingness to receive a third dosage were all shown to be substantially correlated (p < 0.001). Attitude and behavior ratings were substantially correlated with prior COVID-19 immunization status (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant correlation between vaccination knowledge, confidence in the capacity of the vaccine to prevent problems, and willingness to receive a third dose. Therefore, our research can help policymakers develop more precise and scientific roll-out strategies for the COVID-19 booster vaccination.

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.

Worldwide Estimation of Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine for Their Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Currently, the best method to well control the spread of COVID-19 without severe mental health problems is to reach herd immunity. Therefore, the vaccination rate of the COVID-19 vaccine is critical. Among the populations, children are the vulnerable ones to get vaccinated; therefore, it is important to assess parents’ and guardians’ willingness to have their children vaccinated. The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence to estimate the parents’ acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination toward their children. Additionally, factors explaining the acceptance rate were investigated. Four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest) together with Google Scholar were searched, and the references of the included publications were searched as well. Using the PECO-S framework (population, exposure, comparison, outcome, and study design), observational studies of cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies were included. The outcome was parents’ or guardians’ willingness to let their children be vaccinated. The studies included in the present review were restricted to English and peer-reviewed papers published between December 2019 and July 2022. A total of 98 papers across 69 different countries with 413,590 participants were included. The mean age of the parents was 39.10 (range: 18–70) years and that of their children was 8.45 (range: 0–18) years. The pooled estimated prevalence of parental acceptance to vaccinate their children with the COVID-19 vaccine was 57% (98 studies, 95% CI: 52–62%, I2: 99.92%, τ2: 0.06). Moreover, data collection time was a significant factor explaining parental willingness in the multivariable meta-regression, with a 13% decrease in parental willingness by each month increase in time, explaining 11.44% of variance. Qualitative synthesis results showed that parents’ COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, trust in theCOVID-19 vaccine, and facilitators in vaccination (e.g., low cost, good vaccine accessibility, and government incentive) were significant factors for higher willingness, while mental health problems (e.g., having worries and psychological distress) were significant factors for lower willingness. Given that the acceptance rate was relatively low (57%) and does not achieve the requirement of herd immunity (i.e., 70%), governments and healthcare authorities should try to elevate parents’ knowledge and trust in the COVID-19 vaccine, facilitate in vaccination, and reduce their mental difficulties to improve the overall vaccination rate among children.

Understanding COVID: Collaborative Government Campaign for Citizen Digital Health Literacy in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The strategy "Understanding COVID" was a Public Health campaign designed in 2020 and launched in 2021 in Asturias-Spain to provide reliable and comprehensive information oriented to vulnerable populations. The campaign involved groups considered socially vulnerable and/or highly exposed to COVID-19 infection: shopkeepers and hoteliers, worship and religious event participants, school children and their families, and scattered rural populations exposed to the digital divide. The purpose of this article was to describe the design of the "Understanding COVID" strategy and the evaluation of the implementation process. The strategy included the design and use of several educational resources and communication strategies, including some hundred online training sessions based on the published studies and adapted to the language and dissemination approaches, that reached 1056 people of different ages and target groups, an accessible website, an informative video channel, posters and other pedagogical actions in education centers. It required a great coordination effort involving different public and third-sector entities to provide the intended pandemic protection and prevention information at that difficult time. A communication strategy was implemented to achieve different goals: reaching a diverse population and adapting the published studies to different ages and groups, focusing on making it comprehensible and accessible for them. In conclusion, given there is a common and sufficiently important goal, it is possible to achieve effective collaboration between different governmental bodies to develop a coordinated strategy to reach the most vulnerable populations while taking into consideration their different interests and needs.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among the public in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A review of the literature

Vaccine hesitancy has a significant impact on tackling infectious diseases as it has resulted in reemergence of vaccine-preventable diseases. This review aims to provide an up-to-date evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the public in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. We searched the PubMed and SCOPUS databases for manuscripts published on vaccine hesitancy and/or acceptance among the public in GCC countries up till April 1^st, 2022. Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The average vaccine hesitancy rate across GCC countries was 43%. Concerns about vaccine safety (n = 32) and effectiveness (n = 26) were most frequently associated with hesitancy. Being male (n = 25) and having positive behavior regarding the influenza vaccine or vaccines in general (n = 22) were most frequently associated with acceptance. Collaborative efforts of governments, academic bodies, and the media to provide evidence of vaccines' effectiveness throughout history and strictly manage the spread of the vaccine safety-related rumors are warranted.

What Contributes to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy? A Systematic Review of the Psychological Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy plays a crucial role in worldwide pandemic-control efforts. The multifaceted nature of vaccine hesitancy entails many psychological factors that are widely discussed in the literature, although few studies specifically compile these factors. Thus, this systematic review aims to synthesize the psychological factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. As per the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted on electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, PsycNET, and Web of Science, and a manual search was conducted on Google Scholar. Out of the 2289 articles obtained, 79 studies that met the inclusion criteria were deemed eligible for the review. The findings highlight appraisals of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine safety and side effects, vaccine confidence/trust, trust in government and healthcare professionals, scepticism around vaccine production, conspiracy beliefs, emotions, and information and knowledge about the vaccine as the major psychological factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. Concerningly, misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination spread through social media platforms, increasing vaccine hesitancy. Recommendations for government authorities, healthcare professionals, and implications for future research are also outlined.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

A Mixed-Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Its Determinants Among Pregnant Women in Northeast Ethiopia

Background

The World Health Organization recommends that pregnant women should receive a vaccine against COVID-19. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitance was one of the barriers to delivering the vaccine, and this issue was not well addressed in Ethiopia. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination acceptability and the factors that influence it among pregnant women in Northeast Ethiopia.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach comprising both qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey was conducted from January 1-30, 2022. For the quantitative part, a multi-stage sampling technique was used to recruit the study participants (n=702). Data was collected through face-to-face interviews using pretested and structured questionnaires. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed. The statistical difference was considered at P-0.05, and the strength of association was assessed by the odds ratio and respective 95% confidence intervals. For the qualitative part, 18 participants were selected purposively for in-depth interviews, an interviewer guide was used for data collection and thematic content analysis was performed.

Results

In this study, a total of 702 pregnant women were included with the response rate of 100%. The rate of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 22.6% (95% CI: 19.6%, 25.9%). The husbands' educational level (AOR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09, 3.64), chronic medical illness (AOR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.28, 4.54), positive attitude (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.31), and good practice of COVID-19 preventive measures (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.31) were determinant factors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. According to the qualitative findings, the most common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were fear of fetal side effects, misconceptions about the vaccine, and religious beliefs.

Conclusion

In this study, the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine was low. Therefore, health professionals should disseminate accurate vaccination information and address misinformation to boost vaccine acceptance among pregnant women.

Parents'Attitudes, Their Acceptance of the COVID-19 Vaccines for Children and the Contributing Factors in Najran, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, so it is critical to immunize the majority of people, including children, to achieve herd immunity against the pandemic. As parents are the ones who ultimately decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, this study was conducted to determine parental acceptance and hesitancy toward vaccinating their children against COVID-19, as well as their knowledge of and concerns regarding vaccination against COVID-19, as well as factors that might influence their willingness to vaccinate in Najran city, Saudi Arabia. Methods: In February 2022, a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study using a convenientand snowball sampling technique was carried out. Parents of children between the ages of 5 and 11 were given access to an online self-administered survey. The poll was, however, open to parents of children under the age of 5. Using the Raosoft sample size calculator, the minimum necessary sample size was determined to be 384 under the assumptions of a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. A p value of less than 0.05 was deemed significant for the statistical analysis, which was carried out using SPSS version 27. To examine the relationship between demographic factors and how drivers affect parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, a chi-square test was performed. Through multivariate regression analysis, the predictors of vaccine hesitancy were identified. Results: A total of 464 responses were collected and subjected to data analysis. More than half of the parents were male (56.9%) and between the ages of 26 and 40 (56.7%). Most parents have children aged between 5–11 years (73.5%). Of parents, 72.2% showed vaccine hesitancy and were 9.5 times less likely to immunize their children against COVID-19. About 27.8% of the parents were ready to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 as soon as possible, compared to 15.51% of parents who were not at all interested in vaccinating their children. Parents under 25 (34.48%) and over 41 (37.79%), non-Saudi (40.59%), holding postgraduate and higher degrees (39.5%), earning more than 10,000 SAR per month (34.96%), working as healthcare professionals (40.36%) and in government sectors (33.93%), self-employed (33.33%), with three to five children (35.26%) and male (31.33%) demonstrated significantly high willingness to vaccinate their children against the COVID-19 vaccine compared to their counterparts. Parents who concur that COVID-19 vaccination may have serious adverse effects in children, who believe that COVID-19 is an uncommon disease and does not require vaccination, have had a family member infected withCOVID-19 with severe symptoms, who were unvaccinated and had severe to moderate symptoms after vaccination, showed significantly higher unwillingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Parents who take safety precautions and do not believe that new vaccines provide an increased risk had higher vaccination intentions for their children. A positive impact of mandatory childhood vaccination was noted on the COVID-19 vaccination. Parents with children suffering from any chronic disease exhibited a 9.9 times higher hesitancy to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. A total of 47.8% of parents had come across or heard about anti-COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. A lack of adequate safety data, potential future consequences, and vaccine efficacy were the main concerns with COVID-19 vaccines. The primary information source for COVID-19-related information was the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH). Conclusions: Parents’ hesitation to get the COVID-19 vaccine at a significant rate may compromise the success of the ongoing vaccination campaign. The development and implementation of multi-component interventions are required. Hospital- and community-based programs must be used to get in touch with parents.

Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Reluctance Among Staff Working in Public Healthcare Settings of Saudi Arabia: A Multicenter Study

Objective

The study aimed to evaluate the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination acceptance and reluctance among staff working in Saudi healthcare facilities.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted during April - May 2021, among healthcare workers in five public hospitals under the National Guards Health Association located in Alahsa, Dammam, Jeddah, Madinah, and Riyadh. The study used a questionnaire in English language, which was distributed through official email communication among healthcare staff currently working at study venues. The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS v23. An ethical approval was obtained.

Results

A total of 1,031 responses were recorded. Most of the staff had both doses of COVID-19 vaccine (89%). The mean score for vaccine acceptance on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was 3.55 ± 1.6. The mean score for vaccine reluctance on the same scale was 2.71 ± 1.05. Most participants mentioned safety (76.9%) and efficacy (56.3%) as vaccine concerns and believed that COVID-19 vaccine may not be effective because of changes in virus strain (55.5%). The variables of gender and nationality significantly affected vaccine acceptance, while age, gender, nationality, and profession significantly affected vaccine reluctance (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Most healthcare staff were vaccinated, and a high acceptance for COVID-19 vaccination was reported. Several demographic factors affected the vaccine acceptance and reluctance.

In-Person Schooling Amidst Children’s COVID-19 Vaccination: Exploring Parental Perceptions Just after Omicron Variant Announcement

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron spread fast globally and became the predominant variant in many countries. Resumption of public regular life activities, including in-person schooling, presented parents with new sources of worry. Thus, it is important to study parental worry about the Omicron variant, willingness to vaccinate their children, and knowledge about school-based COVID-19 precautionary measures. Methods: A national, cross-sectional, pilot-validated online questionnaire targeting parents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed between 31 December 2021, and 7 January 2022. The survey included sociodemographic, COVID-19 infection data, parental and children vaccination status, attitudes towards booster vaccine, parents’ Omicron-related perceptions and worries, and attitude towards in-person schooling. Results: A total of 1340 participants completed the survey, most (65.3%) of whom were mothers. Of the parents, 96.3% either received two or three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Only 32.1% of the parents were willing to vaccinate their young children (5–11 years of age). In relation to their children 12–18 years of age, 48% had already had them vaccinated, 31% were planning to vaccinate them, and 42.8% were willing to administer a booster dose. Only 16% were more worried about the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant. Residents of western KSA were more worried about Omicron compared to Delta. Parents worried about the Omicron variant and male participants were significantly less aware of school-based COVID-19 precautionary measures. Parents with post-graduate degrees and those having more children were significantly more inclined to send their children to school even if COVID-19 outbreaks could occur in schools, while parents who were more worried about the Omicron variant and were more committed to infection prevention measures were significantly less inclined to do so. Conclusions: Overall, parents had lower worry levels about the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant. They had a higher willingness to vaccinate their older children compared to the younger ones. In addition, our cohort of parents showed high willingness to send their children to schools and trusted the school-based preventative measures. These findings can inform policy makers when considering school related decisions during the current or future public health crises.

Parental perceptions and the 5C psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccination during the first month of omicron variant surge: A large-scale cross-sectional survey in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

With the rapid surge of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, we aimed to assess parents' perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines and the psychological antecedents of vaccinations during the first month of the Omicron spread.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey in Saudi Arabia was conducted (December 20, 2021-January 7, 2022). Convenience sampling was used to invite participants through several social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Twitter, and email lists. We utilized the validated 5C Scale, which evaluates five psychological factors influencing vaccination intention and behavior: confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility.

RESULTS

Of the 1,340 respondents, 61.3% received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, while 35% received an additional booster dose. Fify four percentage were unwilling to vaccinate their children aged 5-11, and 57.2% were unwilling to give the additional booster vaccine to children aged 12-18. Respondents had higher scores on the construct of collective responsibility, followed by calculation, confidence, complacency, and finally constraints. Confidence in vaccines was associated with willingness to vaccinate children and positively correlated with collective responsibility (p < 0.010). Complacency about COVID-19 was associated with unwillingness to vaccinate older children (12-18 years) and with increased constraints and calculation scores (p < 0.010). While increasing constraints scores did not correlate with decreased willingness to vaccinate children (p = 0.140), they did correlate negatively with confidence and collective responsibility (p < 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate the relationship between the five antecedents of vaccination, the importance of confidence in vaccines, and a sense of collective responsibility in parents' intention to vaccinate their children. Campaigns addressing constraints and collective responsibility could help influence the public's vaccination behavior.

Beliefs and Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Three Countries with Different Human Development Index (HDI) Scores: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

As vaccination is a cornerstone strategy to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this study assessed and compared beliefs about and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among the population of three countries with different Human Development Index (HDI) scores: Saudi Arabia (very high), India (medium), and Sudan (low).

METHODS

A web-based, self-administered structured questionnaire was employed to collect data from the three countries. The questionnaire contained three sections that measured sociodemographic characteristics, participants' beliefs about and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, barriers to receiving COVID-19 vaccines, and scenarios in which there is a possibility to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine whether there was an association between the country of the participant and their beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

972 responses were collected. The study participants from India were more likely to believe in the safety and efficacy of vaccines than those from Saudi Arabia or Sudan. Consequently, they reported more willingness to get vaccinated to avoid complications from COVID-19. Regarding barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, concerns about adverse effects and ineffectiveness of vaccines were more common among Saudi participants, while concerns about conspiracy were more common among Sudanese participants.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was higher in countries with a very high to medium Human Development Index, indicating greater belief in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Sociodemographic Predictors Associated with the Willingness to Get Vaccinated against COVID-19 in Peru: A Cross-Sectional Survey

During the race for the development of a vaccine against COVID-19, even before its commercialization, part of the population has already shown a growing fear of its application. We designed an analytical cross-sectional study using an anonymous survey in the 25 departments of Peru. We surveyed whether the participants were planning on getting vaccinated, as well as other characteristics that were cross-checked in a uni-, bi- and multivariate manner. Of the 1776 respondents, 70% (1251) stated that they were planning to be vaccinated, 20% (346) did not know yet or doubted it, and 10% (179) did not want to be vaccinated. We observed that those who did not get infected with COVID-19 exhibited a higher frequency to not wanting or were uncertain about getting vaccinated (aPR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.09-1.81; p-value = 0.008). In contrast, there was a lower frequency of vaccine refusal among university students (aPR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; p-value = 0.005) and healthcare workers (aPR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44-0.80; p-value = 0.001); adjusted by place of residence. There is still an important percentage of respondents who do not want to be vaccinated or are hesitant to do it, which was associated with educational level, being a healthcare worker and if they were previously infected with COVID-19. Our results could offer useful information about COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.