COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among primary healthcare workers in Singapore

Primary Healthcare Providers' Views on Periodic COVID-19 Booster Vaccination for Themselves and Their Patients: A 2023 Nationwide Survey in Belgium

New COVID-19 strains and waning vaccine effectiveness prompted initiatives for booster vaccination. In Belgium, healthcare providers (HCPs) received a second booster in July 2022, with eligible individuals receiving a third in autumn. Primary HCPs (PHCPs) play a crucial role in healthcare organization and patient communication. This study, conducted in February-March 2023, surveyed 1900 Belgian PHCPs to assess their views on periodic COVID-19 boosters for themselves and their patients. The survey included questions on sociodemographic information, willingness to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, reasons for acceptance or refusal, confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy, and views on booster recommendations. Overall, 86% of participants were willing to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, motivated by self-protection, patient well-being, and the uninterrupted delivery of healthcare services. Factors influencing booster refusal included not being a general practitioner (GP) or GP trainee, working in Wallonia or Brussels, and lacking vaccine confidence. Although 243 participants would not take boosters periodically, only 74 would not recommend it. Regarding administration, 59% supported pharmacist involvement in COVID-19 vaccination. Further qualitative analysis of 290 PHCPs' responses revealed varying recommendations, including specific roles like nurses, organizational structures, and collaborative approaches. This study highlights the need to address vaccine confidence, regional disparities, and PHCP roles in booster implementation.

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Healthcare Workers in Indonesia: Lessons from Multi-Site Survey

The COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented challenge to public health as well as an extraordinary burden on health systems worldwide. COVID-19 vaccines were attributed as a key tool to control the pandemic, with healthcare workers (HCWs) as a priority group to receive the vaccine. Healthcare workers are considered one of the most trusted sources of information on vaccines and vaccination. This study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs in four different provinces of Indonesia. An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted online among HCWs between December 2020 and February 2021. Out of 2732 participants, 80.39% stated that they would accept the COVID-19 vaccine, while 19.61% were hesitant to receive the vaccine. Concerns about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines and potential side-effects after vaccination were the main reasons among the participants to refuse the vaccine. Male gender, single status, higher education level, and higher risk perception increased the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. Other motivators of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance include a high level of trust in the government and increased confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy studies. Dissemination of information in a timely manner as well as training programs for HCWs are crucial to increasing confidence in the COVID-19 vaccination program.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The unprecedented emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the development and global distribution of vaccines, making the understanding of global vaccine acceptance and hesitancy crucial to overcoming barriers to vaccination and achieving widespread immunization.

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative.

RESULTS

Our inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.59%). Higher acceptance rates were observed among health care workers and individuals with chronic diseases, at 64% (95% CI 0.57%-0.71%) and 69% (95% CI 0.61%-0.76%), respectively. However, lower acceptance was noted among pregnant women, at 48% (95% CI 0.42%-0.53%), and parents consenting for their children, at 61.29% (95% CI 0.56%-0.67%). The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 32% (95% CI 0.25%-0.39%) in the general population. The quality assessment revealed 19 high-quality, 38 moderate-quality, 15 low-quality, and 6 critically low-quality meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023468363; https://tinyurl.com/2p9kv9cr.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on behavioral changes in healthcare workers in Italy

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence to wearing face mask and washing hands procedures and achieving high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among healthcare workers (HCWs) were essential to minimize morbidity and possible death and limit the transmission of the virus. The objectives of the cross-sectional survey were to explore the influence of COVID-19 on the use of preventive measures and vaccination willingness among HCWs in the southern part of Italy and the associated factors.

Methods

The survey was carried out from 15 June 2023 to 15 July 2023 among 521 HCWs who worked in three randomly selected public hospitals. All data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire.

Results

HCWs had a positive change in the use of preventive measures if they did not often/always use them before the pandemic, but they are using in the current epidemiologic context and they were willing to use in a future epidemic situation. A positive change in the adherence to face mask-wearing (24.6%) was more likely among those with at least 5 years of university degree, nurses/midwives, and who had worked in COVID-19 wards. A positive change in alcohol-based hand rubbing (3.1%) was more likely in HCWs in Emergency/Critical/Infectious Diseases wards compared with medical wards. HCWs who were more likely to believe that the COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory for them (58.1%) had at least 5 years of university degree, in Emergency/Critical/Infectious Diseases wards compared with surgical and medical wards, had received more than three doses of this vaccine, were more concerned to get infected during their activity, and had received information from scientific journals. HCWs more willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine every year (39.8%) were males, physicians, those in Emergency/Critical/Infectious Diseases wards compared with medical wards, who had received more than three doses of this vaccine, who believed that this vaccine should be mandatory for HCWs, and who needed additional information.

Discussion

The survey showed that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the use of preventive measures among HCWs, not necessarily for the improvement or increase. Educational messages on the importance of these measures regarding the promotion and recommendation of the vaccine need to be investigated and applied among HCWs in order to reduce vaccination gaps and the spread of the infection.

Hesitancy Over the COVID-19 Vaccine Among Various Healthcare Workers: An International Narrative Review

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are role models in their communities. If they receive the COVID-19 vaccine, many people are likely to follow and have the vaccine. If HCWs are hesitant or resistant to taking the vaccine, this may impede the efforts to implement the vaccine, reach herd immunity, and eliminate the pandemic. In this narrative review, we reviewed previous studies on hesitancy over COVID-19 vaccination among different healthcare professions and people in the medical field, such as primary HCWs, dentists, nurses, and medical students. We reviewed the common reasons and associated factors for hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine among different healthcare professions. The following keywords were used in the database search: COVID-19 AND vaccine AND hesitancy AND healthcare workers. We searched for articles using the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We found HCW professions with various rates of hesitancy, including primary healthcare center (PHC) workers (50%), medical students (45%), nurses (21%), and dentists (18%). Hesitancy toward booster doses was also found in HCWs who had taken primary doses (2.8% to 26%). Race and ethnicity also influenced hesitancy rates, with Black individuals being the most hesitant group. The most common reasons were concerns about the safety and adverse effects of the vaccine, insufficient information, and a lack of confidence in healthcare policies. Despite varying rates of HCW hesitancy after the vaccine's release, this hesitancy is expected to negatively affect efforts to achieve widespread vaccination. The recommendations to policymakers to address these concerns are raising the awareness of PHC doctors because they are the easiest to reach and are the first line for patient information, improving communication with the HCWs through all channels (e.g., webinars, e-mails, and social media), and inviting HCWs to online meetings or workshops with the healthcare policymakers so the policymakers can listen to their concerns and recommendations. Correctly addressing the issue of HCWs' vaccination hesitancy can support efforts to contain the pandemic.

Attitudes towards COVID Vaccine and Vaccine Hesitancy in Dermatology: A Narrative Review

Vaccine hesitancy has been a contentious issue even before the pandemic. The COVID-19 crisis has further amplified vaccine hesitancy, with worries about adverse effects, cultural and religious beliefs, and misinformation on social media. In dermatology, patients with pre-existing skin conditions may have specific concerns about the impact of the vaccine on their skin health. Factors such as cutaneous reactions, potential flares of underlying conditions, and fears of psoriasis worsening post-vaccination contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals, including dermatologists, play a crucial role in addressing vaccine hesitancy by providing accurate information, addressing concerns, and understanding the psychological impact on patients. The concept of vaccine fatigue is also explored, noting the challenges in sustaining vaccine acceptance over time, especially with regards to booster vaccinations. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy requires trust-building, effective communication strategies, and collaboration between healthcare workers and non-healthcare individuals to combat misinformation. By recognizing and addressing psychological factors, dermatologists can increase vaccine acceptance and improve public health efforts.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Lusaka, Zambia; Findings and Implications for the Future

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to address the severe consequences of the disease. Previous studies have suggested that many healthcare workers (HCWs) are hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, further enhancing hesitancy rates within countries. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy levels are currently unknown among HCWs in Zambia, which is a concern given the burden of infectious diseases in the country. Consequently, this study assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among HCWs in Lusaka, Zambia. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 240 HCWs between August and September 2022, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. Of the 240 HCWs who participated, 54.2% were females. A total of 72.1% of the HCWs would accept being vaccinated, while 27.9% were hesitant. Moreover, 93.3% of HCWs had positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, with medical doctors having the highest mean attitude score (82%). Encouragingly, HCWs with positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines had reduced odds of being hesitant (AOR = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.01-0.11, p < 0.001). Overall, acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs in Lusaka, Zambia, was high, especially by those with positive attitudes. However, the current hesitancy among some HCWs is a concern. Consequently, there is a need to address this and encourage HCWs to fully promote vaccination programs going forward.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Future COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Refusal in Healthcare Workers after a Massive Breakthrough Infection Wave, a Nationwide Survey-Based Study

Background: An unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave occurred in China between December 2022 and January 2023, challenging the efficacy of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines. The attitudes toward future COVID-19 booster vaccines (CBV) after the massive breakthrough infection among healthcare workers remain unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and determinants of future CBV refusal after the unprecedented COVID-19 wave among healthcare workers. Methods: Between 9 and 19 February 2023, a cross-sectional nationwide online survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire vaccine among healthcare workers in China. Sociodemographics, profession, presence of chronic medical conditions, previous COVID-19 infection, attitudes towards future CBV, and reasons for future CBV refusal were collected. We estimated odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI] using a multivariable logistic regression model to explore the factors associated with future CBV refusal. Results: Among the 1618 participants who completed the survey, 1511 respondents with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed. A total of 648 (41.8%) of respondents were unwilling to receive a future CBV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed the association of CBV refusal with profession (vs. other staff, physician-adjusted OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.79-1.72, nurse-adjusted OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.24-2.85, p = 0.008), history of allergy (adjusted OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.05-2.83, p = 0.032), a lower self-perceived risk of future COVID-19 infection (p < 0.001), and a lower belief in CBV effectiveness (p = 0.014), safety (p < 0.001), and necessities for healthcare workers and the public (p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings highlight that a considerable proportion of healthcare workers were against a future booster dose after an unprecedented COVID-19 wave. Self-perception of future COVID-19 risk, and potential harm or doubtful efficacy of vaccines are the main determinants. Our findings may help public health authorities to establish future COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Association between proximity to COVID-19 and the quality of life of healthcare workers

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects almost all countries in the world and it impacts every aspect of people’s life-physically, mentally, and socio-economically. There are several research studies examining the impact of this pandemic on health, however, very few studies examining the impact of this pandemic on quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the association between proximity to the COVID-19 and quality of life of healthcare workers and identify factors influencing quality of life.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among hospital staff in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Data on demographic, medical history, lifestyle factors, psychosocial factors, and quality of life were collected using online self-administered questionnaire. Quality of life (QoL) was measured by the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Robust linear regression was used to determine factors associated with quality of life.

Results

A total of 1911 participants were included in the analysis. The average age of participants was 38.25 (SD = 11.28) years old. 26.90% of participants had been quarantined, hospitalised, being suspected or diagnosed of having COVID-19 infection and they were found to have the lowest levels of QoL across all four domains (physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains). Participants who were singles or nurses, worked in shifts or worked longer hours, had chronic diseases were likely to have lower QoL scores compared to participants in other categories. Healthy lifestyle, social connectivity, resilience, social and workplace support were associated with higher QoL scores.

Conclusions

In planning of measures which aim to improve QoL of healthcare workers, priority should be given to individuals who have been quarantined, hospitalised, being suspected, or diagnosed of having COVID-19 infection. In addition to the proximity of the COVID, lifestyle and psychosocial factors contribute to QoL of healthcare workers. Hence, multifaceted interventions are needed to improve QoL of healthcare workers.

Factors of COVID-19 Vaccine Perception among Transport Drivers in Singapore: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

Transport drivers have high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines can reduce disease severity. However, COVID-19 vaccine perception among transport drivers is unknown. To identify the key factors influencing vaccine perception of transport drivers in Singapore, a cross-sectional pilot study was conducted. One hundred four completed survey responses were collected between September 2021 and February 2022. Using multivariable logistic regression, education, general vaccine knowledge and attitude, practice of social distancing, misinformation of rare vaccine side effects, and perceiving the pandemic situation to be severe were independently associated with vaccine perception. Despite high vaccination coverage, there were substantial poor vaccine perception, vaccine hesitancy, and unwillingness to take third dose. Vaccination rate may thus not be an accurate reflection of true vaccine acceptance. Communication strategies need to focus on correcting knowledge gaps, instilling collectivist attitudes, and highlighting the importance of vaccination over social distancing to enhance booster uptake rate.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

Lebanon endured its worst economic and financial crisis in 2020-2021. To minimize the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to improve the overall COVID-19 vaccination rate. Given that vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs) affects the general population's decision to be vaccinated, our study assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Lebanon HCWs and identified barriers, demographic differences, and the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between January and May 2021 among HCWs across nine hospitals, the Orders of Physicians, Nurses, and Pharmacists in Lebanon. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and univariate and multivariable to identify their predictors.

RESULTS

Among 879 participants, 762 (86.8%) were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, 52 (5.9%) refused, and 64 (7.3%) were undecided. Males (226/254; 88.9%) and those ≥ 55 years (95/100; 95%) had the highest rates of acceptance. Of the 113 who were not willing to receive the vaccine, 54.9% reported that the vaccine was not studied well enough. Participants with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not know if they had a previous infection (p = 0.002) were less likely to accept the vaccine compared to those with no previous infection. The most trusted COVID-19 sources of information were WHO (69.3%) and healthcare providers (68%).

CONCLUSION

Lebanese HCWs had a relatively high acceptance rate for COVID-19 vaccination compared to other countries. Our findings are important in informing the Lebanese health care authorities to establish programs and interventions to improve vaccine uptake among HCWs and the general population.

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.

Psychological Antecedents of Healthcare Workers towards Monkeypox Vaccination in Nigeria

The ongoing monkeypox (MPX) outbreak has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. People in close contact with active MPX cases, including healthcare workers (HCWs), are at higher risk of virus acquisition since the MPX virus can be transmitted by skin contact or respiratory secretions. In this study, we aimed to assess the psychological antecedents of MPX vaccination among Nigerian HCWs using the 5C scale. We used an anonymous online cross-sectional survey to recruit potential participants using snowball sampling. The questionnaire aimed to assess the geo/socioeconomic features and the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccine acceptance (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility). A total of 389 responses were included, with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 28−48), 55.5% males, and 60.7% married participants. Among the studied Nigerian HCWs, only 31.1% showed confidence in MPX vaccination, 58.4% expressed complacency towards vaccination, 63.8% perceived constraints towards MPX vaccination, 27.2% calculated the benefits and risks of vaccination, and 39.2% agreed to receive MPX vaccination to protect others. The determinants of MPX vaccine confidence were being single (OR = 5.07, 95% CI: 1.26−20.34, p = 0.022), a higher education level (with pre-college/high school as a reference, professional/technical: OR = 4.12, 95% CI: 1.57−10.73, p = 0.004, undergraduate: OR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.32−6.55, p = 0.008, and postgraduate degree (OR = 3.48, 95% CI: 1.51−8.04, p = 0.003), and absence of chronic disease (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.27−5.22, p = 0.009). The significant complacency predictors were having a middle-income (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33−0.89, p = 0.008), having a bachelor’s degree (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.10−5.11, p = 0.027), and knowledge of someone who died due to MPX (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05−0.93, p = 0.040). Income was associated with perceived vaccination constraints (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39−0.99, p = 0.046). Participants aged 46−60 years had decreased odds in the calculation domain (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.27−0.98, p = 0.044). Middle-income and bachelor degree/postgraduate education significantly influenced the collective responsibility domain (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.19−3.69, p = 0.010; OR = 4.17, 95% CI: 1.85−9.38, p < 0.001; and OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 1.50−7.90, p = 0.003, respectively). An investigation of the 5C pattern-based psychological antecedents of MPX vaccination in a sample of Nigerian HCWs revealed low levels of vaccine confidence and collective responsibility with high levels of constraints and complacency. These psychological factors are recommended to be considered in any efforts aiming to promote MPX vaccination needed in a country where MPX is endemic.

Knowledge and practices toward COVID-19 among healthcare students: A cross-sectional study at the University of Zambia

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the disruption of physical classes for university students globally, as large gatherings fuelled the transmission of the virus. In the efforts to mitigate its transmission and return to normality, prevention measures, including vaccination, have been encouraged. Therefore, it is critical to understand the knowledge and practices of students regarding COVID-19. This study assessed the knowledge and practices toward COVID-19 among healthcare students at the University of Zambia.

Materials and methods

This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was carried out from August 2021 to October 2021 among 478 healthcare students (pharmacy, physiotherapy, nursing, biomedical, medicine, and radiography). We used a previously validated questionnaire to measure knowledge and practice. The predictors of knowledge and practices were assessed using logistic regression with robust estimation of standard errors. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata/BE version 17.0.

Results

Of the 478 respondents, 243 (50.8%) were females. A larger proportion, 175 (36.6%) were in Pharmacy training, and 156 (32.6%) were in their fifth year of study. The overall mean knowledge score of the participants was 87.9 (SD = 16.1), being higher at 89.6 (SD = 14.3) among medical students and the lowest at 86.7 (SD = 17.1) among Pharmacy students, although this was statistically non-significant (p = 0.488). The overall mean practice score was 60.0 (SD = 24.7), being significantly higher at 63.5 (23.4) among nursing, physiotherapy and environmental students compared to other students (p = 0.048). In multivariable analysis, the participant training program was non-significantly associated with knowledge and practice toward COVID-19. However, increased age (AOR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.117) and residing in urban areas (AOR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.07-3.01) than in rural areas were associated with higher odds of good practice toward COVID-19.

Conclusion

The healthcare students generally showed good knowledge levels and poor practices toward COVID-19. Further, there was no evidence of a difference in knowledge of COVID-19 among healthcare students. These findings suggest the need for implementation strategies to be centered on improving the practices of students toward COVID-19.

Multifactorial influences underpinning a decision on COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers: a qualitative analysis

COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers (HCW) is essential for improved patient safety and resilience of health systems. Despite growing body of literature on the perceptions of COVID vaccines in HCWs, existing studies tend to focus on reasons for 'refusing' the vaccines, using surveys almost exclusively. To gain a more nuanced understanding, we explored multifactorial influences underpinning a decision on vaccination and suggestions for decision support to improve vaccine uptake among HCWs in the early phase of vaccination rollout. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with thirty-three HCWs in Singapore. Transcribed data was thematically analyzed. Decisions to accept vaccines were underpinned by a desire to protect patients primarily driven by a sense of professional integrity, collective responsibility to protect others, confidence in health authorities and a desire to return to a pre-pandemic way of life. However, there were prevailing concerns with respect to the vaccines, including long-term benefits, safety and efficacy, that hampered a decision. Inadequate information and social media representation of vaccination appeared to add to negative beliefs, impeding a decision to accept while low perceived susceptibility played a moderate role in the decision to delay or decline vaccination. Participants made valuable suggestions to bolster vaccination. Our findings support an approach to improving vaccine uptake in HCWs that features routine tracking and transparent updates on vaccination status, use of institutional platforms for sharing of experience, assuring contingency management plans and tailored communications to emphasize the duty of care and positive outlook associated with vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster dose vaccination after completing the primary vaccination series for individuals ≥18 years and most-at-risk populations. This study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake and intention to get the booster dose among general populations and healthcare workers (HCWs). We searched PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect according to PRISMA guidelines. From a total of 1079 screened records, 50 studies were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using 48 high-quality studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. Using the 48 included studies, the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among 198,831 subjects was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 75-85%, I2 = 100%). The actual uptake of the booster dose in eight studies involving 12,995 subjects was 31% (95% CI: 19-46%, I2 = 100%), while the intention to have the booster dose of the vaccine was 79% (95% CI: 72-85%, I2 = 100%). The acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58-74%), I2 = 99%). Meta-regression revealed that previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a lower intention to have the booster dose. Conversely, previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a significantly higher level of booster dose actual uptake. The pooled booster dose acceptance in the WHO region of the Americas, which did not include any actual vaccination, was 77% (95% CI: 66-85%, I2 = 100%). The pooled acceptance of the booster dose in the Western Pacific was 89% (95% CI: 84-92%, I2 = 100), followed by the European region: 86% (95% CI: 81-90%, I2 = 99%), the Eastern Mediterranean region: 59% (95% CI: 46-71%, I2 = 99%), and the Southeast Asian region: 52% (95% CI: 43-61%, I2 = 95). Having chronic disease and trust in the vaccine effectiveness were the significant predictors of booster dose COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The global acceptance rate of COVID-19 booster vaccine is high, but the rates vary by region. To achieve herd immunity for the disease, a high level of vaccination acceptance is required. Intensive vaccination campaigns and programs are still needed around the world to raise public awareness regarding the importance of accepting COVID-19 vaccines needed for proper control of the pandemic.

Healthcare Workers and Nonhealthcare Workers Pro-Vaccination Attitude and Its Associated Factors towards COVID-19 Vaccine Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has not been managed and controlled globally. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the global pro-vaccination attitude and associated factors towards COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) and nonhealthcare workers (non-HCWs).

Methods

Different databases such as PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were used. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 flowchart diagram and PRISMA checklist were used for study screening, selection, and inclusion into this systematic review and meta-analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment criteria for cross-sectional studies were used to assess the included articles.

Results

A total of 51 studies were included into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the global pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among both HCWs and non-HCWs was 61.30% (95%CI: 56.12, 66.47, I 2 = 99.8%: p=0.000). Subgroup analysis showed that the global pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine was the lowest (59.77%, 95%CI (51.56, 67.98); I 2 = 99.6%, p=0.000) among the HCWs participants and the highest (62.53%, 95%CI (55.39, 69.67); I 2 = 99.8%, p=0.000) among the non-HCWs participants and the lowest (54.31%, 95%CI (43, 65.63); I 2 = 99.5%, p=0.000) for sample size <700 and the highest (66.49%, 95%CI (60.01, 72.98); I 2 = 99.8%, p=0.000) for sample size >700; the lowest (60.70%, 95%CI (54.08, 67.44); I 2 = 93.0%, p=0.000) for studies published in 2020 year and the highest (61.31%, 95%CI (55.93, 66.70); I 2 = 99.8%, p=0.000) for the studies published after 2020 years. From this systematic review, factors significantly associated with pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs were such as age, gender, race, work experience, home location, having no fear of injections, being a non-smoker, profession, presence of chronic illnesses, allergies, confidence in pharmaceutical companies, history of taking influenza vaccine, vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of new vaccines, perceived utility of vaccine, receiving a seasonal flu vaccination in the last 5 years, working in a private hospital, a high perceived pandemic risk index, low vaccine harm index, high pro-socialness index, being in close contact with a high-risk group, knowledge about the virus, confidence in and expectations about personal protective equipment, and behaviors. The level of positive attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among non-HCWs ranged from 21.40% to 91.99%. Factors associated with the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among non-HCWs were such as age, gender, educational level, occupation, marital status, residency, income, ethnicity, risk for severe course of COVID-19, direct contact with COVID-19 at work, being a health profession, being vaccinated against seasonal flu, perceived benefits, cues to actions, having previous history of vaccination, fear of passing on the disease to relatives, and the year of medical study, studying health-related courses, COVID-19 concern, adherence level to social distancing guidelines, history of chronic disease, being pregnant, perceived vaccine safety, having more information about vaccine effectiveness, mandatory vaccination, being recommended to be vaccinated, lack of confidence in the healthcare system to control epidemic, and belief in COVID-19 vaccines protection from COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis revealed that the global estimated pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among both HCWs and non-HCWs was unsatisfactory. Globally, there is a need for a call for action to cease the crisis of this pandemic.

Acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: A meta-analysis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed increasing challenges to global health systems. Vaccination against COVID-19 can effectively prevent the public, particularly healthcare workers (HCWs), from being infected by this disease.

Objectives

We aim to understand the factors influencing HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to collect literature published before May 15, 2022, about HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the included studies. We utilized Stata 14.0 software for this meta-analysis with a random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. This meta-analysis was conducted in alignment with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.

Results

Our meta-analysis included 71 articles with 93,508 HCWs involved. The research showed that the acceptance of vaccines had significantly increased among HCWs compared to non-HCWs (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.16-3.12). A willingness to undergo COVID-19 vaccination was observed in 66% (95% CI: 0.61-0.67) of HCWs. Among the HCWs involved, doctors showed a generally increased intention to be vaccinated compared with nurses (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.71-2.89). Additionally, males were found to hold more positive attitudes toward vaccination than females (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.55-2.12). When the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines was improved, the vaccination acceptance of HCWs was greatly increased accordingly (OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 2.77-9.11). The HCWs who were willing to vaccinate against seasonal influenza showed an increased acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 3.52, 95% CI: 2.34-5.28). Our study also showed that HCWs who were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 experienced a reduced rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66-0.92).

Conclusions

Our analysis revealed that the five factors of occupation, gender, vaccine effectiveness, seasonal influenza vaccines, and SARS-CoV-2 infection presumably affected the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. It is essential to boost the confidence of HCWs in COVID-19 vaccines for the containment of the epidemic.

Targeting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among nurses in Shanghai: A latent profile analysis

Objectives

This study aims to clarify the profiles of the psychological antecedents of vaccine hesitancy among Shanghai nurses with a person-centered approach.

Methods

A population-based cross-sectional online survey was conducted on Shanghai nurses from July to August 2021 (N = 1,928). In the online survey, participants were asked to report their sociodemographic, the 5C vaccine hesitancy components, their knowledge level of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination, and the COVID-19 vaccination uptake intention and attention to vaccine news. Latent profile analysis was used to reveal distinct profiles of vaccine hesitancy.

Results

The results revealed four profiles, including "believers" (68.9%; high confidence and collective responsibility), "free riders" (12.7%; similar characteristics to believers, except for a low collective responsibility), "middlemen" (14.6%; middle in all 5C constructs), and "contradictors" (3.7%; high in all 5C constructs). Compared to believers, middlemen were younger, more likely to be female, childless, less educated, held lower professional titles, had fewer years of nursing service, sometimes or never complied with recommended vaccinations, had satisfactory or poor self-assessed health status, had no work experience during the COVID-19 epidemic, and possessed greater levels of knowledge. Free riders were more likely to work in community health centers and have a lower degree than believers. Contradictors were more likely to work in community health centers, had junior college degrees or lower, and had no work experience during the COVID-19 epidemic than believers. From the highest to the lowest on vaccination intention and attention to vaccine news were believers, then free riders, contradictors, and finally middlemen.

Conclusion

This study could aid in the development of personalized vaccination strategies based on nurses' vaccine hesitancy profiles and predictors. In addition to vaccine believers, we identified other three profiles based on their 5C psychological antecedents, emphasizing the significance of establishing tailored vaccination campaigns. Further research into the prevalence of profile structure in other groups of healthcare workers is required.

Global Prevalence and Potential Influencing Factors of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy: A Meta-Analysis

Countries worldwide have deployed mass COVID-19 vaccination drives, but there are people who are hesitant to receive the vaccine. Studies assessing the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy are inconclusive. This study aimed to assess the global prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and determine the potential factors associated with such hesitancy. We performed an organized search for relevant articles in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Extraction of the required information was performed for each study. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed to determine the global prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy; the potential factors related to vaccine hesitancy were analyzed using a Z-test. A total of 56 articles were included in our analysis. We found that the global prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was 25%. Being a woman, being a 50-year-old or younger, being single, being unemployed, living in a household with five or more individuals, having an educational attainment lower than an undergraduate degree, having a non-healthcare-related job and considering COVID-19 vaccines to be unsafe were associated with a higher risk of vaccination hesitancy. In contrast, living with children at home, maintaining physical distancing norms, having ever tested for COVID-19, and having a history of influenza vaccination in the past few years were associated with a lower risk of hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination. Our study provides valuable information on COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy, and we recommend special interventions in the sub-populations with increased risk to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Physical and mental health characteristics related to trust in and intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination: results from a Korean community-based longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting attitudes toward coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, including socio-demographic characteristics and mental health status during the pandemic.

METHODS

This study analyzed responses from 1,768 participants who were originally included in a community cohort study and responded to 3 online surveys related to COVID-19 (March 2020 to March 2021). The k-means method was used to cluster trust in and intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Baseline (2013-2018) socio-demographic characteristics, physical health status, and depressive symptoms were analyzed as exposure variables, and current mental health status was included in the analyses.

RESULTS

Almost half of all participants were classified into the moderate trust and high intention cluster (n=838, 47.4%); those with high trust and high intention accounted only for 16.9%. They tended to be older, had high-income levels, and engaged in regular physical activity at baseline (p<0.05), and their sleep quality and psychological resilience were relatively high compared to other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that more efforts are required to enhance the perceived need for and trust in COVID-19 vaccination.

Believing processes around COVID-19 vaccination: An exploratory study investigating workers in the health sector

BACKGROUND

The processes underlying believing have been labeled "creditions", which are important brain functions between emotion and cognition. Creditions are influenced by both internal and external factors, one of which is the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the vaccination against the disease.

METHODS

To investigate believing processes shortly before the implementation of a mandatory vaccination in Austria, both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers in the health sector (WHS) were surveyed in December 2021/January 2022. In total, 1,062 vaccinated and 97 unvaccinated WHS (920 females) completed the online survey. Beliefs were assessed using the parameters of the credition model (narrative, certainty, emotion, and mightiness) with regard to (1) the COVID-19 pandemic in general, and (2) the vaccination. Type of emotion and narrative were divided into positive, negative, and indifferent. Moreover, the congruence between emotion and narrative was calculated.

RESULTS

The vaccination rate of the sample was 91.6%, with a significantly higher percentage of men being in the group of vaccinated (21.1%) as compared to unvaccinated individuals (12.4%). Pertaining beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccination, unvaccinated WHS reported more negative and less positive emotions as well as content of narrative than vaccinated WHS. In addition, they showed higher levels of certainty as well as mightiness while believing and felt less sufficiently informed about governmental and workplace-related COVID-19 measures. The groups did not differ in the type of emotion or content of narrative in their beliefs about the pandemic in general.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, unvaccinated WHS had more negative and less positive emotions and thoughts than vaccinated WHS in their beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccination and their motivations for not having received it. They were more certain about their beliefs and felt stronger negative emotions in their beliefs compared to vaccinated individuals. Providing unvaccinated WHS with adequate information might be helpful in reducing their mental burden.