Hesitancy towards COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Arab Countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a major obstacle to the large efforts made by governments and health organizations toward achieving successful COVID-19 vaccination programs. Healthcare worker's (HCWs) acceptance or refusal of the vaccine is an influencing factor to the attitudes of their patients and general population. This study aimed to report the acceptance rates for COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs in Arab countries and identify key factors driving the attitudes of HCWs in the Arab world toward vaccines.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using pre-specified keywords. All cross-sectional studies that assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and/or acceptance among HCWs in Arab countries until July 2022, were included. The quality of the included studies and the risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool. The pooled acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine was assessed using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 861 articles were identified, of which, 43 were included in the study. All the studies were cross-sectional and survey-based. The total sample size was 57,250 HCWs and the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine was 60.4% (95% CI, 53.8% to 66.6%; I2, 41.9%). In addition, the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate among males was 65.4% (95% CI, 55.9% to 73.9%; I2, 0%) while among females was 48.2% (95% CI, 37.8% to 58.6%; I2, 0%). The most frequently reported factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were being male, higher risk perception of contracting COVID-19, positive attitude toward the influenza vaccine, and higher educational level. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy most frequently included concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, living in rural areas, low monthly income, and fewer years of practice experience.

CONCLUSION

A moderate acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccines was reported among HCWs in the Arab World. Considering potential future pandemics, regulatory bodies should raise awareness regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and tailor their efforts to target HCWs who would consequently influence the public with their attitude towards vaccines.

Promoter or barrier? Assessing how social media predicts Covid-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy: A systematic review of primary series and booster vaccine investigations

RATIONALE

Prior research indicates that social media is primarily a negative contributor to Covid-19 vaccine outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The current systematic review of Covid-19 primary series and booster vaccine investigations provides a more nuanced and comprehensive assessment of this association by exploring a) how distinct social media judgments and actions predict different vaccine-related outcomes - perceptions and intentions/uptake, b) both primary series and booster findings, c) types of social media, and d) comparisons across different populations.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of published research examining the link between social media and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes - judgments, intentions, and uptake. Overall, we identified 113 published articles.

RESULTS

The findings reveal complex associations between distinct social media predictors and these outcomes. The most consistent negative relationships emerge within studies looking at 'social media as an information source,' 'trust', and 'general social media use/passive exposure' as predictors of less favorable vaccine judgments and intentions/uptake. Conversely, studies focused on 'information seeking' indicate more mixed results. Among the few booster investigations, there are more positive than negative associations between social media predictors and Covid-19 vaccine intentions. Across different social media platforms and sample populations, social media was a less robust/consistent negative predictor of COVID-19 judgments and intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

While social media can contribute to more negative COVID-19 vaccine judgments and motivations, the consistency of this relationship may vary across populations, the platforms users access, and the nature of exposure. Overall, social media campaigns promoting COVID-19 vaccines should employ distinct strategies to target those individuals that value social media as an information resource.

Institutional trust is a distinct construct related to vaccine hesitancy and refusal

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is driven by a heterogeneous and changing set of psychological, social and historical phenomena, requiring multidisciplinary approaches to its study and intervention. Past research has brought to light instances of both interpersonal and institutional trust playing an important role in vaccine uptake. However, no comprehensive study to date has specifically assessed the relative importance of these two categories of trust as they relate to vaccine behaviors and attitudes.

METHODS

In this paper, we examine the relationship between interpersonal and institutional trust and four measures related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and one measure related to general vaccine hesitancy. We hypothesize that, across measures, individuals with vaccine hesitant attitudes and behaviors have lower trust-especially in institutions-than those who are not hesitant. We test this hypothesis in a sample of 1541 Canadians.

RESULTS

A deficit in both interpersonal and institutional trust was associated with higher levels of vaccine hesitant attitudes and behaviors. However, institutional trust was significantly lower than interpersonal trust in those with high hesitancy scores, suggesting that the two types of trust can be thought of as distinct constructs in the context of vaccine hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we suggest that diminished institutional trust plays a crucial role in vaccine hesitancy. We propose that this may contribute to a tendency to instead place trust in interpersonally propagated belief systems, which may be more strongly misaligned with mainstream evidence and thus support vaccine hesitancy attitudes. We offer strategies rooted in these observations for creating public health messages designed to enhance vaccine uptake.

Mental health during the omicron pandemic: A comparison between medical staff and non-medical staff

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of people suffered from mental disorders due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the virus mutated, the effect of COVID-19 changed. This study intends to compare the mental health between the medical staff and non-medical staff during the Omicron pandemic, and to analyze the relevant risk factors.

METHODS

The cross-sectional study was conducted by a set of online questionnaires, 1246 medical staff and 1246 non-medical staff were selected after a 1:1 propensity score matching. The questionnaires included the demographic characteristics, the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Insomnia Severity Index Scale (ISI), and the Psychological Resilience Scale(CD-RISC).

RESULTS

Compared with medical staff, non-medical staff scored higher on CAS and CES-D (both P < 0.001). Non-medical staff had higher prevalence of anxiety (55.0 % versus 47.3 %; adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.23-1.70), depression (62.4 % versus 53.4 %; adjusted OR = 1.46, 95 % CI = 1.23-1.73) and insomnia (46.5 % versus 43.4 %; adjusted OR = 1.21, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.43). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that being female, being younger than 40 years, having an annual income of <50,000 yuan, paying attention to omicron, in the course of an infection and below bachelor degree influenced anxiety, depression and insomnia of the medical staff and non-medical staff to different degree.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This study only collected data through the network. Therefore, the validity was reduced to some extent. The outbreak of the Omicron epidemic posed a significant challenge to public mental health, with non-medical staff at the highest risk for mental health problems.

The Impact of Social Media on Vaccination: A Narrative Review

Vaccine hesitancy poses a significant global health challenge, fueled by misinformation and anti-vaccination campaigns on social media platforms (SMPs). This study examines the influence of social media on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 vaccination in Asia during the peri-pandemic period. Through a comprehensive analysis of available literature, we aim to elucidate the role of SMPs in shaping vaccination attitudes and behaviors. The findings highlight the detrimental impact of social media on vaccination efforts and provide insights into addressing vaccine hesitancy during this critical period. A narrative review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases from inception to May 26, 2022. Only English-language articles involving human participants from Asian countries were included in this review. Out of the 228 articles identified through the database search, 14 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in Asian countries was found to be high, ranging from 20% to 55% across countries. Notably, reliance on SMPs for vaccine-related information was associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. This trend coincided with the proliferation of misinformation and conspiracy theories that portrayed COVID-19 vaccines as harmful during the pandemic. Similar patterns were observed for other types of vaccines, including polio, measles mumps and rubella, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines. The use of SMPs was also found to be associated with increased fear among caregivers in Asian countries, as well as a 3-4 times higher likelihood of delayed immunization. SMPs negatively impact vaccine intent in Asia due to misinformation and anti-vaccination campaigns during the pandemic. However, they can be a powerful tool for healthcare providers and policymakers to promote informed decision-making. Efforts should focus on leveraging SMPs to disseminate reliable information and combat hesitancy, fostering a well-informed and vaccinated population in Asia.

Determinants of influenza and COVID-19 vaccine intent or uptake in Lebanon: a scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is essential to protect from influenza and recently from COVID-19, yet uptake in Lebanon is suboptimal. Several factors determine uptake including knowledge, attitude and policies. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to explore the determinants of influenza and COVID-19 vaccine intent or uptake in Lebanon.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, thirty one peer reviewed studies indexed in six databases Pub Med, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were screened. Two students, a senior Librarian and an Associate Professor in nursing searched for eligible studies. The library search strategy followed a combination of three broad concepts (viral influenzas; vaccines; Lebanon). The search timeframe was up till December 31, 2022. Determinants of influenza and COVID-19 vaccine intent or uptake were categorized following the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior.

RESULTS

Nine studies investigated influenza vaccine intent or uptake among the public community, parents and healthcare workers. Twenty one studies investigated COVID-19 vaccine intent or uptake among the public community, older refugees, university students, patients with cancer, dentists, and social media users. One study investigated both types of vaccines. A conceptual model of the determinants of vaccine intent and uptake within the Lebanese context was developed. Various determinants included environmental factors, norms, knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, past experiences, behavioral control and hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on vaccine intent and uptake in Lebanon is still in its infancy, while that of COVID-19 is on the rise. Multifaceted reasons behind the low vaccination rates were observed yet few attempts were made to target vulnerable groups. Further research studies are needed to target vulnerable groups.

Norm Perceptions about Rumor Sharing on Genetically Modified Foods: The Interaction between Facebook Likes and a Refuting Comment

This study investigated how normative information on Facebook (i.e., the number of Likes on a Facebook post and a refuting comment) influences one's intention to share a rumor post regarding genetically modified foods. The results of an online experiment with 630 Facebook users showed that a high number of Likes increased the intention to share the post through perceived descriptive and injunctive norms of sharing behavior. The number of Likes on the post and a refuting comment interacted to influence perceived injunctive norms about rumor sharing. A comment stating that the post is a rumor increased injunctive norm perceptions about rumor sharing when the number of Likes on the post is low.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Willingness of Healthcare Workers to Recommend or Receive a Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dose: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Background: The availability of COVID-19 vaccines worldwide necessitates measuring healthcare workers’ (HCWs’) willingness to recommend or receive these vaccines. Therefore, we conducted a local study in Jordan to assess HCWs’ willingness to recommend or receive a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and the predictors of such a decision. A cross-sectional study investigated Jordanian HCWs’ willingness regarding a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine using a self-administered online questionnaire through WhatsApp, a mobile phone application. A total of 300 HCWs participated in the current study. Of these HCWs, 65.3% were physicians, 25.3% were nurses, and 9.3% were pharmacists. HCWs’ overall willingness regarding a third vaccine dose was 68.4% (49.4% certainly and 19.0% probably), whereas the overall willingness of HCWs to recommend a third dose to their patients was 73.3% (49.0% certainly and 24.3% probably). Males had significantly higher willingness than females (82.1% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.05). Physicians reported more willingness than nurses and pharmacists. HCWs’ willingness was not significantly affected by direct contact with a patient infected with COVID-19 or by a personal history of COVID-19 infection. Only 31% of HCWs were certainly willing to recommend the vaccine to their patients with chronic diseases, and only 28% of the participants were certainly willing to recommend it to people aged 65 or older. HCWs’ willingness to receive a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is limited in Jordan. This has affected their certainty in recommending this vaccine to their patients or people older than 60. Decision-makers and health-promotion programs in Jordan should focus on addressing this public health problem.

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929).

RESULTS

Of the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa.

A mixed methods study exploring requests for unproven COVID therapies such as ivermectin and healthcare distrust in the rural South

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to contentious discourse regarding unproven COVID-19 therapies (UCTs),(e.g. ivermectin). Despite recommendations against it, ivermectin remains, in some areas, highly demanded. The goal of this study is to understand patient and provider perspectives about UCTs (e.g., ivermectin) and how responses to requests for UCTs impact healthcare distrust. This mixed methods observational study was conducted in a rural healthcare system in the Southern United States. Adults (n = 26) with a history of COVID-19 or clinicians (n = 8) from the same system were interviewed using questionnaires assessing healthcare distrust and qualitatively interviewed exploring perceptions about UCTs. Patient themes were: 1) Importance of anecdotal stories for decision-making; 2) Use of haphazard approaches to 'research'; 3) Strong distrust of government and healthcare organizations; 4) Inherent trust in local healthcare; 5) Decision-making as weighing pros/cons; and 6) Feeling a right to try medications. High survey medians indicated high distrust with differences of 8.5 points for those who requested/used ivermectin versus those who did not (p = 0.027). Clinician themes were: 1) Frustration when patients trust social media over clinicians; 2) Acceptance of community beliefs about UCTs; 3) Distrust originating outside of the healthcare system; 4) Feeling torn about prescribing UCTs to build trust; and 5) Variable educational strategies. When clinicians are perceived as aligned with government, this may void patients' trust of clinicians. Clinicians should leverage trust in local healthcare and distance themselves from distrusted information sources. Ethical questions arise regarding appropriateness of acquiescing to patient requests for ivermectin for building trust.

Attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers: a cross sectional study from Egypt

Background

Herd immunity is necessary to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Vaccination is the fastest and safest pandemic control strategy. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are essential in providing vaccination information. The aim of this study was to assess intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 among HCWs in Egypt and to determine the factors that may influence their decision.

Methods

A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs who care for patients in several hospitals in Delta region, Egypt. The questionnaire included sociodemographic, clinical, and occupational data, intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and beliefs and attitudes towards COVID-19 and its vaccination.

Results

The study included 455 HCWs with a mean age of 36.55 years (SD = 10.31) and 80% were females. The acceptance rate for the COVID-19 vaccine was 70.5%, while hesitancy and resistancy were both 17.6 and 11.9% respectively. About one-third (33.4%) of the subjects had previously contracted COVID-19. Most participants believed that they had a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 (71.6%). More than 64% believed they were at risk for vaccination side effects. Fear of infection and being at high risk of infection were the main drivers for COVID-19 vaccination, while the major barriers were waiting for additional experience with these new vaccines and having doubts about the vaccines’ efficacy.

Conclusions

The acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is very high. This crucial group needs to be the focus of educational initiatives and campaigns designed to increase public awareness of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination.

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.

Relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and practices and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional study in Taizhou, China

Objective

This study aimed to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Chinese adults and analyzed the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, practices (KAP), and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

A population-based self-administered online survey was conducted in Taizhou, China to evaluate the population's hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination. A total of 2.463 adults received the invitation for the survey through WeChat (A Chinese app that is used for chat, social media, and mobile payment), and 1.788 interviewees answered the structured questionnaire. The overall response rate was 72.6%.

Results

Total 45.2% of people were hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccination. Using binary logistic regression analysis, we found low perception of safety (Model 3: Odds ratio = 2.977, Confidence interval: 2.237–3.963) and efficacy (Model 3: OR = 1.904, 95%CI: 1.462–2.479) of the COVID-19 vaccine in adults is the most important risk factor for COVID-19 vaccine hesitation. People who know more about COVID-19 vaccination are less hesitant (Model 2: OR = 0.967, 95% CI: 0.951–0.983). People who did not seek information independently about the COVID-19 vaccine are more likely to be skeptical (Model 4: OR = 1.300, 95% CI: 1.058–1.598, P = 0.013).

Conclusion

In China, the population had higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine hesitation, and their knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccine, perceptions of safety and efficacy, and physical health status were significantly associated with vaccine hesitation. These results provide ideas for promoting COVID-19 vaccination and intervention and have far-reaching implications for further strengthening research on vaccine hesitancy in COVID-19 and exploring strategies for COVID-19 vaccine promotion.

What Drives Elderly People in China Away from COVID-19 Information?

Background: A worrying phenomenon has emerged in recent years: a growing number of people have stopped seeking coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) information and have started deliberately avoiding it. Even though the virulence of COVID-19 has now weakened, the proportion of severe illnesses and deaths in elderly people is still much higher than in other age groups. However, no study has focused on this topic. This is the first study to explore the level of COVID-19 information avoidance among elderly people, and to identify the barriers and potential factors associated therewith. Methods: Convenience sampling was used to recruit 907 elderly people in Wuhan, China. Data collection measures included a sociodemographic questionnaire, health information avoidance scale, information overload scale, general self-efficacy scale, and health anxiety inventory. Results: A total of 72.3% of elderly participants reported COVID-19 information avoidance. Regarding COVID-19-related information reading habits, 44.5% of the elderly only read the title, 16.0% merely skimmed through the content, and 22.9% skipped all relevant information. The most common reasons for this result were information overload (67.5%), underestimation of the infection risk (58.1%), and uselessness of information (56.4%). The main factors associated with COVID-19 information avoidance were recorded as information overload, age, health anxiety, and children (p < 0.05). Conclusions: China should strengthen its health communication regarding COVID-19 in accordance with the characteristics of elderly people, adopt more attractive publicity methods on traditional media, improve censorship about health information, and pay more attention to the childless elderly and the elderly aged 80 and above.

Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccines and Its Hesitancy Among Jordanian Population

Background

Since the spread of the COVID-19 virus, governments are putting significant resources into ending the pandemic. Vaccination arises as the best solution to get back to our everyday lives. However, we are now facing vaccine hesitancy, which is a critical problem.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted between December 15, 2020, and March 1, 2021, using a validated online-based questionnaire; participants were compared using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program based on multiple factors.

Results

A total of 1607 participants throughout Jordan have responded to the questionnaire, among which 880 (54.8%) have bachelor's degrees, 236 (14.7%) have a high educational level (master and doctoral), and 491 (30.5%) have a diploma or less. Although this is a non-probable sample, it is not a representative sample as, according to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), only 33.6% of the Jordan population have a tertiary education.

Overall, 892 (55.5%) of the studied subjects had the intention to take the vaccine, distributed as follows: 156 (66.1%) of the high educational participants wanted to take the vaccine, compared to 512 (58.2%) of those who have bachelor’s degree and 224 (45.6%) of those who have diploma or less (p < 0.001). Reading scientific articles talking about the vaccines and their effects (55.6%, p < 0.001), knowing the mechanism of action (45.2%, p = 0.007), getting proper medical advice (27.2%, p < 0.001), encouraged by the increasing number of infections and deaths (39.7%, p < 0.001), and the number of people who received the vaccine (16.1%, p < 0.001) were the most critical factors that played a role in taking the vaccine by all of the studied groups.

Male gender (OR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.54-2.64; p < 0.001), high income of more than 1000 JDs (1400 USD) (OR = 3.23; 95% CI = 2.21-4.71; p < 0.001), having an educational level of either high education (OR = 3.39; 95% CI = 2.07-5.55; p < 0.001) or bachelor degree (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.25-2.24; p = 0.001), and being encouraged by the increasing number of infections and deaths caused by COVID-19 (OR = 1.97; 95% CI = 1.46-2.66; p < 0.001) were all significantly associated with the willingness to take the vaccine.

Conclusion

As the world rushes toward vaccination to end the pandemic, efforts are needed to end this phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy by enlightening people with the precise knowledge regarding the vaccine's mechanism of action, side effects, and efficacy focusing mainly on people with lower educational levels.

Social media and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy continues to limit global efforts in combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging research demonstrates the role of social media in disseminating information and potentially influencing people's attitudes towards public health campaigns. This systematic review sought to synthesize the current evidence regarding the potential role of social media in shaping COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, and to explore its potential for shaping public health interventions to address the issue of vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the studies published from inception to 13 of March2022 by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsychNET, Scopus, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. Studies that reported outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (attitudes, opinion, etc.) gathered from the social media platforms, and those analyzing the relationship between social media use and COVID-19 hesitancy/acceptance were included. Studies that reported no outcome of interest or analyzed data from sources other than social media (websites, newspapers, etc.) will be excluded. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of all cross-sectional studies included in this review. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021283219).

FINDINGS

Of the 2539 records identified, a total of 156 articles fully met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of the cross-sectional studies was moderate - 2 studies received 10 stars, 5 studies received 9 stars, 9 studies were evaluated with 8, 12 studies with 7,16 studies with 6, 11 studies with 5, and 6 studies with 4 stars. The included studies were categorized into four categories. Cross-sectional studies reporting the association between reliance on social media and vaccine intentions mainly observed a negative relationship. Studies that performed thematic analyses of extracted social media data, mainly observed a domination of vaccine hesitant topics. Studies that explored the degree of polarization of specific social media contents related to COVID-19 vaccines observed a similar degree of content for both positive and negative tone posted on different social media platforms. Finally, studies that explored the fluctuations of vaccination attitudes/opinions gathered from social media identified specific events as significant cofactors that affect and shape vaccination intentions of individuals.

INTERPRETATION

This thorough examination of the various roles social media can play in disseminating information to the public, as well as how individuals behave on social media in the context of public health events, articulates the potential of social media as a platform of public health intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

FUNDING

None.

Misinformation about Covid-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Background

The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19.

Objective

We aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms.

Methods

We performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.

Results

The search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines.

Conclusions

To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021277524; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277524

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.31219/osf.io/tyevj

How Do People Decide on Getting Vaccinated? Evaluating the COVID-19 Vaccination Program through the Lens of Social Capital Theory

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economies at a scale unprecedented in recent history, and vaccination is deemed the only option to ultimately halt its spread. However, vaccine hesitancy remains a global issue that must be addressed. If left unaddressed, it will impede the recovery of both the economy and public health following the pandemic. To better understand the issue, on the premise that individuals have layers of social ties to achieve common goals, social capital theory is proposed to examine the social connections associated with vaccine acceptance. A case study of the Republic of the Philippines’ vaccination program, in the form of an online survey involving 430 participants, was conducted using logistic binomial regression to analyze the data. Findings reveal that people’s vaccination decisions are influenced by their perceptions of their social ties regarding the vaccines, such as the perceptions one’s social ties’ trust in the vaccines, safety of use, benefits vaccines can offer, the role of media in information dissemination, and the influence of social networks. Insights regarding these findings are also discussed.

Public acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines and its predictors in Middle ‎Eastern/North African (MENA) countries: a systematic review‎

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccines emerged as a worldwide hope to contain the pandemic. However, many people ‎are still hesitant to receive these vaccines. We aimed to systematically review the public knowledge, perception, and acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and the predictors of vaccine acceptability in this region.

Methods

We systematically searched databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane and retrieved ‎all relevant studies by 5 August 2021.

Results

There was a considerable variation in the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance ‎rates, from 12% in a study from Israel to 83.3% in Kuwait, although two other studies from Israel mentioned 75% ‎and 82.2% acceptability rates. Concerns about the side effects and safety of the vaccine were the main reasons for ‎the lack of acceptability of taking the vaccine, which was reported in 19 studies. ‎

Conclusion

Several factors, such as age, gender, education level, and comorbidities, ‎are worthy of attention as they could expand vaccine coverage in the target population.‎

Preoperative Anxiety among Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgeries at a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study during the Era of COVID-19 Vaccination

Anxiety in the perioperative period has significant impact on both the flow of surgery and the post-operative recovery process. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of preoperative anxiety among adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures at a tertiary teaching hospital and the effect of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on preoperative anxiety. We used the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) to assess patients’ anxiety toward surgery and their need for more information. Patients with APAIS about anesthesia and surgery (APAIS-A-T) total score <10 were considered as the low preoperative anxiety group, while patients with APAIS-A-T ≥11 were considered as the high preoperative anxiety group. The overall APAIS-A-T score of the 794 included patients was 8.5 ± 4.5. The mean APAIS-A-T score was 7.0 ± 3.8 among males and 9.6 ± 4.6 among female patients (p < 0.001). The APAIS-A-T score for those who had previously underwent surgery under anesthesia was 8.3 ± 4.4, compared to 9.5 ± 4.8 for those who had not (p = 0.002). No significant difference was found between those with a previous history of COVID-19 and those without (p = 0.105), nor between those who were vaccinated and those who were not (p = 0.550). Sixty-four (26.8%) highly anxious patients were afraid of becoming infected with COVID-19 during their hospital stay (p = 0.009). This fear of COVID-19 in-hospital transmission made 19 (7.9%) highly anxious patients and 36 (4.5%) of the total sample hesitant to undergo this surgery (p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 30.1% of patients had high preoperative anxiety, with fear of pain after surgery being the most common factor related to anxiety on the day of surgery. Controlling the spread of COVID-19 can play a crucial role in decreasing preoperative anxiety during this pandemic.

Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy after Implementation of a Mass Vaccination Campaign

An online cross-sectional study on COVID-19 vaccination adhesion was conducted in Portugal nine months after vaccination rollout (September–November 2021). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hesitancy to take the COVID-19 vaccine in the community-based survey, “COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion”. Hesitancy was 11%; however, of those, 60.5% stated that they intended to take the vaccine. Hesitancy was associated with factors such as lower monthly household income; no intention of taking the flu vaccine this year; perceived reasonable health status; having two or more diseases; low confidence in the health service response; worse perception of the adequacy of anti-COVID-19 government measures; low or no perceived risk of getting COVID-19; feeling agitated, anxious or sad some days; and lack of trust in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Confidence in vaccines, namely against COVID-19, is paramount for public health and should be monitored during vaccination rollout. Clear communication of the risks and benefits of vaccination needs improvement to increase adherence and public confidence.

Prevalence, Knowledge and Potential Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability Among University Students in the United Arab Emirates: Findings and Implications

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence, knowledge, attitude and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines and related factors among university students in the United Arab Emirates.

Methods

Analytical cross-sectional study undertaken among a convenient sample of medical and non-medical colleges of Ajman University using a self-administrated questionnaire. The questionnaire included demographic data as well as assessing knowledge of COVID-19, attitudes and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Results

A total of 467 students participated in the study and completed the questionnaire. A total of 181 (38.8%) participants reported that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 virus, principally with the Sinopharm vaccine (84%). Vaccination against the COVID-19 virus was less prevalent among Arabic nationalities compared to other nationalities, but more prevalent among students from health science colleges compared to those from non-health science colleges. The acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccine among study participants was 56.3%, exacerbated by worries regarding unforeseen problems (65.5%, 306), general mistrust (47.3%, 221) and unforeseen impacts (35.1%, 164). The average knowledge score was 60.1%, with 142 (30.4%) having poor knowledge, 127 (27.2%) acceptable knowledge and 198 (42.4%) good knowledge. There were common misconceptions about symptoms including nausea and diarrhoea, as well as the route of transmission, with half believing antibiotics are effective treatment.

Conclusion

There was variable knowledge of COVID-19 among students. Misconceptions need addressing going forward. To enhance COVID-19 vaccination uptake in the country and worldwide, health education targeting diverse sociodemographic categories should be prioritized.

A Hybrid Model with Spherical Fuzzy-AHP, PLS-SEM and ANN to Predict Vaccination Intention against COVID-19

This study aims to identify the key factors affecting individuals’ behavioral vaccination intention against COVID-19 in Vietnam through an online questionnaire survey. Differing from previous studies, a novel three-staged approach combining Spherical Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (SF-AHP), Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is proposed. Five factors associated with individuals’ behavioral vaccination intention (INT) based on 15 experts’ opinions are considered in SF-AHP analysis, including Perceived Severity of COVID-19 (PSC), Perceived COVID-19 vaccines (PVC), Trust in government intervention strategies (TRS), Social Influence (SOI), and Social media (SOM). First, the results of SF-AHP indicated that all proposed factors correlate with INT. Second, the data of 474 valid respondents were collected and analyzed using PLS-SEM. The PLS-SEM results reported that INT was directly influenced by PVC and TRS. In contrast, SOI had no direct effect on INT. Further, PSC and SOM moderated the relationship between PVC, TRS and INT, respectively. The ANN was deployed to validate the previous stages and found that the best predictors of COVID-19 vaccination intention were PVC, TRS, and SOM. These results were consistent with the SF-AHP and PLS-SEM models. This research provides an innovative new approach employing quantitative and qualitative techniques to understand individuals’ vaccination intention during the global pandemic. Furthermore, the proposed method can be used and expanded to assess the perceived efficacy of COVID-19 measures in other nations currently battling the COVID-19 outbreak.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm: A Comparative Study on Post-Vaccination Antibody Titers

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25-196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11-0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

High rates of vaccination worldwide are required to establish a herd immunity and stop the current COVID-19 pandemic evolution. Vaccine hesitancy is a major barrier in achieving herd immunity across different populations. This study sought to conduct a systematic review of the current literature regarding attitudes and hesitancy to receiving COVID-19 vaccination worldwide.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed on July 5th, 2021, using developed keywords. Inclusion criteria required the study to (1) be conducted in English; (2) investigate attitudes, hesitancy, and/or barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among a given population; (3) utilize validated measurement techniques; (4) have the full text paper available and be peer-reviewed prior to final publication.

FINDINGS

Following PRISMA guidelines, 209 studies were included. The Newcastle Ottawa (NOS) scale for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of the studies.Overall, vaccine acceptance rates ranged considerably between countries and between different time points, with Arabian countries showing the highest hesitancy rates compared with other parts of the world.

INTERPRETATION

A variety of different factors contributed to increased hesitancy, including having negative perception of vaccine efficacy, safety, convenience, and price. Some of the consistent socio-demographic groups that were identified to be associated with increased hesitancy included: women, younger participants, and people who were less educated, had lower income, had no insurance, living in a rural area, and self-identified as a racial/ethnic minority.

Qualitative Assessment of Early Adverse Effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines by Telephone Interviews

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.

COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Germany

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers in the University Clinical Hospital in Wroclaw, Poland

Efforts to limit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among hospital healthcare staff are crucial for controlling the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemics. The study aimed to explore the prevalence and clinical presentations of COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs) at the University Clinical Hospital (UCH) in Wroclaw with 1677 beds. The retrospective study was performed in 2020 using a self-derived structured questionnaire in a sample of HCWs who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed using a PCR double gene test and consented to be enrolled into the study. The significance level for all statistical tests was set to 0.05. The study showed that of the 4998 hospital workers, among 356 cases reported as COVID-19 infected, 70 consented to take part in the survey: nurses (48.5%), doctors (17.1%), HCWs with patient contact (10.0%), other HCWs without patient contact (7.1%), and cleaning personnel (5.7%). HCWs reported concurrent diseases such as hypertension (17.1%), bronchial asthma (5.7%), and diabetes (5.7%). Failure to keep 2 m distancing during contact (65.5%) and close contact with the infected person 14 days before the onset of symptoms or collection of biological material (58.6%) were identified as the increased risks of infection. A large part of infections in hospital healthcare staff were symptomatic (42.9%). The first symptoms of COVID-19 were general weakness (42.9%), poor mental condition (41.4%), and muscle pain (32.9%); whereas in the later stages of the illness, general weakness (38.6%), coughing (34.3%), lack of appetite (31.4%), and loss of taste (31.4%) were observed. In about 30% of the infected HCWs, there was no COVID-19 symptoms whatsoever. The vast majority of the patients were treated at home (85.7%). In conclusion, the majority of the SARS-CoV-2 infections in the hospital HCWs were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Therefore, successful limitation of COVID-19 infection spread at hospitals requires a close attention to future cross-infections.