How to Motivate SARS-CoV-2 Convalescents to Receive a Booster Vaccination? Influence on Vaccination Willingness

Role of SARS-COV-2 and ACE2 in the pathophysiology of peripheral vascular diseases

The occurrence of a novel coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), created a serious challenge worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 has high infectivity, the ability to be transmitted even during the asymptomatic phase, and relatively low virulence, which has resulted in rapid transmission. SARS-CoV-2 can invade epithelial cells, hence, many patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have suffered from vascular diseases (VDs) in addition to pulmonary manifestations. Accordingly, SARS-CoV-2 may can worsen the clinical condition of the patients with pre-existing VDs. Endothelial cells express angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). ACE2 is a biological enzyme that converts angiotensin (Ang)- 2 to Ang-(1-7). SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 as a cell receptor for viral entry. Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus promotes downregulation of ACE2, Ang-(1-7), and anti-inflammatory cytokines, as well as, an increase in Ang-2, resulting in pro-inflammatory cytokines. SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause hypertension, and endothelial damage, which can lead to intravascular thrombosis. In this review, we have concentrated on the effect of SARS-CoV-2 in peripheral vascular diseases (PVDs) and ACE2 as an enzyme in Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS). A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, using related keywords. Articles focusing on ("SARS-CoV-2", OR "COVID-19"), AND ("Vascular disease", OR "Peripheral vascular disease", OR interested disease name) with regard to MeSH terms, were selected. According to the studies, it is supposed that vascular diseases may increase susceptibility to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection due to increased thrombotic burden and endothelial dysfunction. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection mechanism and vascular system pathogenesis is crucial for effective management and treatment in pre-existing vascular diseases.

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Non-Vaccination in Switzerland: A Nationwide Study

Objectives: We compared socio-demographic characteristics, health-related variables, vaccination-related beliefs and attitudes, vaccination acceptance, and personality traits of individuals who vaccinated against COVID-19 and who did not vaccinate by December 2021. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data of 10,642 adult participants from the Corona Immunitas eCohort, an age-stratified random sample of the population of several cantons in Switzerland. We used multivariable logistic regression models to explore associations of vaccination status with socio-demographic, health, and behavioral factors. Results: Non-vaccinated individuals represented 12.4% of the sample. Compared to vaccinated individuals, non-vaccinated individuals were more likely to be younger, healthier, employed, have lower income, not worried about their health, have previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, express lower vaccination acceptance, and/or report higher conscientiousness. Among non-vaccinated individuals, 19.9% and 21.3% had low confidence in the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, respectively. However, 29.1% and 26.7% of individuals with concerns about vaccine effectiveness and side effects at baseline, respectively vaccinated during the study period. Conclusion: In addition to known socio-demographic and health-related factors, non-vaccination was associated with concerns regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness.

A Systematic Review on Sociodemographic, Financial and Psychological Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy among Adult Population

Background: While considerable evidence supports the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, a sizable population expresses vaccine hesitancy. As per the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 hazards to global health. Vaccine hesitancy varies across countries, with India reporting the least vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was higher toward COVID-19 booster doses than previous shots. Therefore, identifying factors determining COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitance (VBH) is the sine qua non of a successful vaccination campaign. Methodology: This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 standards. A total of 982 articles were pooled from Scopus, PubMed and Embase, while 42 articles that addressed the factors of COVID-19 VBH were finally included for further analysis. Result: We identified factors responsible for VBH and divided them into three major groups: sociodemographic, financial, and psychological. Hence, 17 articles stated age to be a major factor for vaccine hesitancy, with most reports suggesting a negative correlation between age and fear of poor vaccination outcomes. Nine studies found females expressing greater vaccine hesitancy than males. Trust deficit in science (n = 14), concerns about safety and efficacy (n = 12), lower levels of fear regarding infection (n = 11), and worry about side effects (n = 8) were also reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Blacks, Democrats, and pregnant women showed high vaccine hesitancy. Few studies have stated income, obesity, social media, and the population living with vulnerable members as factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. A study in India showed that 44.1% of vaccine hesitancy towards booster doses could be attributed dominantly to low income, rural origin, previously unvaccinated status, or living with vulnerable individuals. However, two other Indian studies reported a lack of availability of vaccination slots, a lack of trust in the government, and concerns regarding safety as factors for vaccine hesitancy toward booster doses. Conclusion: Many studies have confirmed the multifactorial nature of VBH, which necessitates multifaceted, individually tailored interventions that address all potentially modifiable factors. This systematic review chiefly recommends strategizing the campaign for booster doses by identifying and evaluating the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, followed by appropriate communication (at both individual and community levels) about the benefits of booster doses and the risk of losing immunity without them.

Towards a sense of urgency for innovation realization: a case study on complacency asymmetries in interorganizational relations

This paper seeks to explore the concept of complacency as a barrier to the sense of urgency within product innovation, by investigating the concept on behalf of interfirm project partners. More specifically, the study aims to understand complacency within the context of an industrial research project in Norway subject to material substitution of an energy transmission tower. As such, the study seeks to give a contextual understanding of complacency for innovation realization (e.g., innovation speed) from a single case study. The study identified different complacency mechanism asymmetries on behalf of the actors, as well as the varying reasons (drivers) to why urgency gaps may occur among actors. The urgency gaps were found to impact a sense of urgency and thus innovation speed negatively. The asymmetries are presented from the drivers: role understanding, competence, project intent, risk and trust. Moreover, the urgency gaps' implications for interorganizational project collaboration, and how they contribute to theory on industrial product innovation, are explained. The findings contribute with new insights on important mechanisms for how a sense of urgency may be enhanced in research projects subject to interorganizational innovation. Theoretical contributions thus relate to enhanced understanding of complacency asymmetry in product innovation collaboration, and how trust is an important dimension for urgency creation.

Why Some People Are Hesitant to Receive COVID-19 Boosters: A Systematic Review

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and transitions to an endemic stage, booster vaccines will play an important role in personal and public health. However, convincing people to take boosters continues to be a key obstacle. This study systematically analyzed research that examined the predictors of COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. A search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus uncovered 42 eligible studies. Globally, the average COVID-19 booster vaccination hesitancy rate was 30.72%. Thirteen key factors influencing booster hesitancy emerged from the literature: demographics (gender, age, education, income, occupation, employment status, ethnicity, and marital status), geographical influences (country, region, and residency), adverse events, perceived benefit/efficacy, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, prior history of COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, vaccination recommendations, health status, knowledge and information, skepticism/distrust/conspiracy theories, and vaccine type. Vaccine communication campaigns and interventions for COVID boosters should focus on factors influencing booster confidence, complacency, and convenience.

Adaptation and Preliminary Validation of the Fear of Coronavirus Vaccination Scale in the Prospective Study among a Representative Sample of Polish, Israeli, Slovenian, and German Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Although concerns about harm and side effects are among the most important factors determining vaccine hesitancy, research on the fear of vaccination is sparse. The purpose of this study is a validation the Fear of Coronavirus Vaccination Scale (FoCVVS), adapted from the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. A representative sample of 1723 young adults aged 20-40 from Poland, Israel, Slovenia, and Germany participated during two time-points of the third COVID-19 pandemic wave. The online survey included demographic variables and several well-being dimensions, including gender, vaccination status, fear of coronavirus (FoCV-19S), physical health (GSRH), life satisfaction (SWLS), and perceived stress (PSS-10), anxiety (GAD-7), and depression (PHQ-9). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed at T1, and confirmatory analysis (CFA) at T2. The second-order two-factor structure demonstrated the best fit and very good discriminant and convergent validation. The general factor of the FoCVVS included two subscales assessing the emotional and physiological symptoms of fear of vaccination. Unvaccinated people showed higher levels of fear of vaccination than those vaccinated. A vaccination status, fear of vaccination T1, and fear of COVID-19 T1 were significant predictors of fear of vaccination T2. Vaccination-promoting programs should be focused on decreasing fear and enhancing the beneficial effects of vaccination.

Network Analysis of Well-Being Dimensions in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Samples of University Students from Poland during the Fourth Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Although numerous studies investigated the predictors of vaccination intention and decision, little is known about the relationship between vaccination and well-being. This study compares the physical and mental health dimensions among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. In a cross-sectional online survey, 706 university students from Poland (mean age of 23 years, 76% of women) participated in this study during the fourth pandemic wave (November–December 2021). Standardized questionnaires with a Likert response scale were included in the survey to measure spirituality, exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived physical health, stress, coronavirus-related PTSD, fear of COVID-19, anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction. Consistent with the fuzzy-trace theory, the unvaccinated sample was younger and scored significantly lower than the vaccinated group in exposure to COVID-19, perceived physical health, stress, coronavirus-related PTSD, fear of COVID-19, and depression, while higher in life satisfaction. The network analysis showed that mental health plays a crucial role in both groups, with the central influence of anxiety and stress on depression and life satisfaction. The message on vaccination to university students should focus on the benefits of vaccination in maintaining the status quo of good health and well-being. Campus prevention programs should primarily aim to reduce anxiety, stress, and negative emotions by teaching students coping strategies, relaxation techniques, and mindfulness.

The Effect of Science-Related Populism on Vaccination Attitudes and Decisions

As the COVID-19 pandemic has sadly shown, the decision against vaccination is often linked to political ideologies and populist messages among specific segments of the population: People do not only have concerns about a potential health risk associated with vaccination but seem to have also adopted more populist attitudes towards science. In this study, the relationship between science-related populism and individuals' attitudes towards vaccination was examined, presuming that scientific-related populism also influences individual responses towards different vaccinations. As different types of diseases and their vaccines might be perceived rather distinctively by the public, different vaccinations were considered. The survey is based on responses from 870 people from Germany and Austria. Results indicate that science-related populism influences responses towards some vaccination types, especially for those that receive extensive media coverage such as COVID-19 and measles (MMR). There was no significant impact of science-related populism on individuals' vaccination intentions for other vaccines like seasonal influenza, human papillomavirus, or tick-borne encephalitis. In conclusion, limitations and directions for future research are addressed.

Influenza and Other Prophylactic Vaccination Coverage in Polish Adult Patients Undergoing Allergen Immunotherapy-A Survey Study among Patients and Physicians

Vaccines against infectious diseases may raise safety concerns in patients undergoing allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The objective of our study was to investigate influenza vaccine and other selected prophylactic vaccines coverage in patients treated with AIT and the attitude of physicians towards vaccinations in this group of patients. We conducted a questionnaire-based study among patients undergoing AIT and physicians. The patients’ survey evaluated influenza and other prophylactic vaccines coverage. The physicians’ survey assessed their experience and opinions on prophylactic vaccinations during AIT. In total, 176 patients (aged 18−79 years) and 120 doctors filled the questionnaires. Patients were assigned to two groups—inhaled allergens group (n = 101) and insect venoms group (n = 68). The number of patients who received any dose (36% and 45%, p = 0.26), as well as two or more doses (17% and 22%, p = 0.43) of influenza vaccine was comparable between two groups. However, in both groups there was a significant (p < 0.0001) decrease in influenza vaccine uptake after the beginning of AIT. Patients from the inhaled allergens group declared a higher tetanus vaccine rate (41% vs. 19%, p = 0.004). The groups did not differ in the pneumococcal and tick-borne encephalitis vaccination coverage. A majority of doctors believe that prophylactic vaccinations in patients undergoing AIT are safe and effective (96% and 94%, respectively); however, as many as 87% of them identify with the need to create clear recommendations regarding vaccinating patients undergoing AIT. Prophylactic vaccine coverage is not satisfactory among Polish adult patients undergoing AIT. Polish doctors are convinced of the validity of prophylactic vaccinations during AIT.