scholarly journals Healthcare workers’ reasons for choosing between two different COVID-19 prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context: Results from an online survey (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Borobia ◽  
Irene García-García ◽  
Lucía Díaz-García ◽  
Amelia Rodríguez-Mariblanca ◽  
Lucía Martínez de Soto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Main Motivation ◽  
Survey Participation ◽  
News Bulletin ◽  
Motivation To Participate

BACKGROUND In April 2020, two independent clinical trials (CT) to assess SARS-Cov-2 prophylaxis in healthcare workers were started in our Hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs the combination of both vs placebo). OBJECTIVE We aim to evaluate the motivations to participate and the reasons to choose one or another. METHODS Both CTs were offered to personnel through the internal news bulletin. After the screening visit, all subjects were asked to answer a web-based survey. RESULTS In the first month, 206 healthcare workers were screened and 160 randomized. Survey participation was quite high, 73.3%. The main motivation to participate was “to contribute to scientific knowledge” 53.0%, followed by “to avoid SARS-Cov-2 infection” and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2”. We found differences between physicians and nurses in the expected personal benefits (P<0.05). The vast majority of the volunteers selected the MeCOVID study, the main reason was the fear of adverse reactions associated with treatments in EPICOS, 69.4%. CONCLUSIONS Healthcare workers´ motivations to participate in prophylaxis trials in a pandemic context appear to be driven mostly by their desire to contribute to science and getting some health benefits. Safety seems to weight way more than efficacy to choose between CTs.

scholarly journals Health Care Workers’ Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study

10.2196/23441 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. e23441
Author(s):  
Alberto M Borobia ◽  
Irene García-García ◽  
Lucía Díaz-García ◽  
Amelia Rodríguez-Mariblanca ◽  
Lucía Martínez de Soto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Primary Reason ◽  
Initial Screening ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Survey Participation ◽  
News Bulletin

Background In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). Objective This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. Methods Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. Results In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited “to contribute to scientific knowledge” (n=80, 53.0%), followed by “to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection” (n=33, 21.9%) and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2” (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). Conclusions Health care workers’ reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

scholarly journals Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1463
Author(s):  
Oleguer Parés-Badell ◽  
Xavier Martínez-Gómez ◽  
Laia Pinós ◽  
Blanca Borras-Bermejo ◽  
Sonia Uriona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Chronic Illnesses ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Leave ◽  
Group 12 ◽  
Vaccine Type ◽  
History Of

The aim of this study was to assess adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, comparing the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines and the presence and seriousness of a previous COVID-19 infection. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). Thirty-eight percent of vaccine recipients responded to the questionnaire. We compared the prevalence of adverse reactions by vaccine type and history of COVID-19 infections. A total of 2373 respondents had received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 506 the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The prevalence of at least one adverse reaction with doses 1 and 2 was 41% and 70%, respectively, in the BNT162b2 group, and 60% and 92% in the mRNA-1273 group (p < 0.001). The BNT162b2 group reported less prevalence of all adverse reactions. Need for medical leave was significantly more frequent among the mRNA-1273 group (12% versus 4.6% p < 0.001). Interestingly, respondents with a history of allergies or chronic illnesses did not report more adverse reactions. The frequency of adverse reactions with dose 2 was 96% (95% CI 88–100%) for those with a history of COVID-19 related hospitalization, and 86% (95% CI 83–89%) for those with mild or moderate symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than for participants with no history of COVID-19 infections (67%, 95% CI 65–69%). Our results could help inform vaccine recipients of the probability of their having adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

A Web-Based Interactive Map to Promote Health-Care Facility Flood Preparedness

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Elena Grossman ◽  
Michelle Hathaway ◽  
Amber Khan ◽  
Apostolis Sambanis ◽  
Samuel Dorevitch
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Interactive Map

Abstract Objectives: Little is known about how flood risk of health-care facilities (HCFs) is evaluated by emergency preparedness professionals and HCFs administrators. This study assessed knowledge of emergency preparedness and HCF management professionals regarding locations of floodplains in relation to HCFs. A Web-based interactive map of floodplains and HCF was developed and users of the map were asked to evaluate it. Methods: An online survey was completed by administrators of HCFs and public health emergency preparedness professionals in Illinois, before and after an interactive online map of floodplains and HCFs was provided. Results: Forty Illinois HCFs located in floodplains were identified, including 12 long-term care facilities. Preparedness professionals have limited knowledge of whether local HCFs were in floodplains, and few reported availability of geographic information system (GIS) resources at baseline. Respondents intended to use the interactive map for planning and stakeholder communications. Conclusions: Given that HCFs are located in floodplains, this first assessment of using interactive maps of floodplains and HCFs may promote a shift to reliable data sources of floodplain locations in relation to HCFs. Similar approaches may be useful in other settings.

scholarly journals P87 Paradigms about the COVID-19 pandemic: knowledge, attitudes and practices from medical students

BJS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eddy Lincango-Naranjo ◽  
Paola Solis-Pazmino ◽  
Eddy Lincango-Naranjo
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
National Curriculum ◽  
Negative Attitude ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Macroeconomic Factors ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Knowledge Attitudes And Practices

Abstract Introduction As new coronavirus has spread globally, economic instability in healthcare systems has been significant. This reality is especially accentuated in Ecuador where, the shortage of healthcare workers combined with cultural and macroeconomic factors have led it to face the most aggressive outbreak in Latin America. In this context, the participation of medical students on the front line is indispensable. Appropriate training on COVID-19 is an urgent need that universities and health systems must guarantee. We aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices in Ecuadorian final year medical students in order to identify the knowledge gaps, perceptions and behavior patterns which could guide the desig3n of better medical education curricula regarding COVID-19. Methods This descriptive 33-item online survey conducted between April 6 to April 20 sent by email and by Facebook and WhatsApp. Results 309 students responded to the survey. 88% scored high (≥ 70% correct) for knowledge of the disease. The majority of students were pessimistic about possible government actions, which is reflected in the negative attitude towards the control of COVID19 in Ecuador and volunteering during the outbreak (77%, and 58% of the students, respectively). Moreover, 91% of students said they did not have adequate protective equipment or training in their health facilities. Conclusions Ecuador has a capable upcoming workforce that could benefit from an opportunity to strengthen, improve and advance their training in preparation for COVID-19. Creating a national curriculum may be one of the most effective ways for all students to be trained, while simultaneously focusing on the students’ most pressing concerns.

scholarly journals The impact of COVID-19 on the care of people living with noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: an online survey of physicians and pharmacists in nine countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Bullen ◽  
Jessica McCormack ◽  
Amanda Calder ◽  
Varsha Parag ◽  
Kannan Subramaniam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
World Health ◽  
Noncommunicable Diseases ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Abstract Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare worldwide. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where people may have limited access to affordable quality care, the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to have a particularly adverse impact on the health and healthcare of individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). A World Health Organization survey found that disruption of delivery of healthcare for NCDs was more significant in LMICs than in high-income countries. However, the study did not elicit insights into the day-to-day impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare by front-line healthcare workers (FLHCWs). Aim: To gain insights directly from FLHCWs working in countries with a high NCD burden, and thereby identify opportunities to improve the provision of healthcare during the current pandemic and in future healthcare emergencies. Methods: We recruited selected frontline healthcare workers (general practitioners, pharmacists, and other medical specialists) from nine countries to complete an online survey (n = 1347). Survey questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and NCDs; barriers to clinical care during the pandemic; and innovative responses to the many challenges presented by the pandemic. Findings: The majority of FLHCWs responding to our survey reported that their care of patients had been impacted both adversely and positively by the public health measures imposed. Most FLHCs (95%) reported a deterioration in the mental health of their patients. Conclusions: Continuity of care for NCDs as part of pandemic preparedness is needed so that chronic conditions are not exacerbated by public health measures and the direct impacts of the pandemic.

scholarly journals Stress, Burnout, and Resilience among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Emergency: The Role of Defense Mechanisms

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 5258
Author(s):  
Mariagrazia Di Giuseppe ◽  
Gianni Nepa ◽  
Tracy A. Prout ◽  
Fabrizio Albertini ◽  
Stefano Marcelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Defense Mechanisms ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Personal Accomplishment ◽  
Traumatic Experience ◽  
Psychological Resources ◽  
Defensive Functioning ◽  
The Impact

The experience of working on the frontlines of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis has presented a cumulative traumatic experience that affects healthcare professionals’ well-being. Psychological resources such as resilience and adaptive defense mechanisms are essential in protecting individuals from severe stress and burnout. During September 2020, 233 healthcare workers responded to an online survey to test the impact of demographic variables, COVID-19 exposure, and psychological resources in determining stress and burnout during the COVID-19 emergency. Frontline workers reported higher scores for stress, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization (p < 0.001) as compared to colleagues working in units not directly serving patients with COVID-19. Mature defensive functioning was associated with resilience and personal accomplishment (r = 0.320; p < 0.001), while neurotic and immature defenses were related to perceived stress and burnout. Stress and burnout were predicted by lower age, female gender, greater exposure to COVID-19, lower resilience, and immature defensive functioning among healthcare professionals (R2 = 463; p < 0.001). Working on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to provoke greater stress and burnout. On the other hand, resilience and adaptive defense mechanisms predicted better adjustment. Future reaction plans should promote effective programs offering support for healthcare workers who provide direct care to patients with COVID-19.

scholarly journals Well-Being of Healthcare Workers and the General Public during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Vietnam: An Online Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 4737
Author(s):  
Tuyen Dinh Hoang ◽  
Robert Colebunders ◽  
Joseph Nelson Siewe Fodjo ◽  
Nhan Phuc Thanh Nguyen ◽  
Trung Dinh Tran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Vaccine Coverage ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Model ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Restrictive Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictive measures implemented may considerably affect people’s lives. This study aimed to assess the well-being of Vietnamese people after COVID-19 lockdown measures were lifted and life gradually returned to normal. An online survey was organized from 21 to 25 April 2020 among Vietnamese residents aged 18 and over. The survey was launched by the Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index (scored 0–25) was used to score participants’ well-being. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the predictors of well-being. A total of 1922 responses were analyzed (mean age: 31 years; 30.5% male; 88.2% health professionals or students in the health sector). The mean well-being score was 17.35 ± 4.97. Determinants of a high well-being score (≥13) included older age, eating healthy food, practicing physical exercise, working from home, and adhering to the COVID-19 preventive measures. Female participants, persons worried about their relatives’ health, and smokers were more likely to have a low well-being score. In conclusion, after the lockdown measures were lifted, the Vietnamese have people continued to follow COVID-19 preventive measures, and most of them scored high on the well-being scale. Waiting to achieve large-scale COVID-19 vaccine coverage, promoting preventive COVID-19 measures remains important, together with strategies to guarantee the well-being of the Vietnamese people.

scholarly journals Would Parents Get Their Children Vaccinated Against SARS-CoV-2? Rate and Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy According to a Survey over 5000 Families from Bologna, Italy

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 366
Author(s):  
Marco Montalti ◽  
Flavia Rallo ◽  
Federica Guaraldi ◽  
Lapo Bartoli ◽  
Giulia Po ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Safe School ◽  
Efficacy Trials ◽  
Adolescent Vaccination ◽  
Web Social ◽  
Mandatory Vaccination

In the near future, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials in larger cohorts may offer the possibility to implement child and adolescent vaccination. The opening of the vaccination for these strata may play a key role in order to limit virus circulation, infection spreading towards the most vulnerable subjects, and plan safe school reopening. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) could limit the ability to reach the coverage threshold required to ensure herd immunity. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and determinants of VH among parents/guardians toward a potentially available COVID-19 vaccination for children and adolescents. An online survey was performed in parents/guardians of children aged <18 years old, living in Bologna. Overall, 5054 questionnaires were collected. A vast majority (60.4%) of the parents/guardians were inclined to vaccinate, while 29.6% were still considering the opportunity, and 9.9% were hesitant. Highest vaccine hesitancy rates were detected in female parents/guardians of children aged 6–10 years, ≤29 years old, with low educational level, relying on information found in the web/social media, and disliking mandatory vaccination policies. Although preliminary, these data could help in designing target strategies to implement adherence to a vaccination campaign, with special regard to web-based information.

scholarly journals Blood Donation-Related Adverse Reactions: Results of an Online Survey among Donors in Germany (2018)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Stefano Orru’ ◽  
Kay Poetzsch ◽  
Marcus Hoffelner ◽  
Margarethe Heiden ◽  
Markus B. Funk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Whole Blood ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Blood Donation ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Logistic Analysis ◽  
German Legislation

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> According to German legislation, reports of suspected serious adverse reactions (AR) associated with the donation of blood and its components are continuously being evaluated by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. This survey aimed at providing a more complete picture of the AR associated with the donation of blood and blood components. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Eligible donors had the opportunity to anonymously report all AR occurring during or after their last donation by completing an online questionnaire. Reported AR were classified according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation. Donors’ self-assessment of AR seriousness was compared with the official severity classification as laid down by German legislation. Besides a descriptive statistical analysis, a multiple logistic analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AR. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 8,138 data records were evaluated. Slightly more males (57.9%) participated in the survey and, except for donors aged ≥60 years, all age groups were equally represented. The majority of participants were whole blood donors (85.4%), repeat donors (97.2%), and stayed under observation in the blood establishment (BE) for more than 5 min (63.1%) after donation. Most participants did not report any reaction (72.5%), whereas 2,237 reported at least one AR (27.5%), 475 of whom underwent apheresis and 1,762 donated whole blood. Most AR occurred after leaving the BE (64.4%). Only a minority of participants required medical treatment (5.1%) or assessed the experienced AR as serious (3.9%). The most frequently reported donor AR were haematoma and other local reactions (57.6%). Vasovagal reactions without and with loss of consciousness were developed in 17 and 2% of the participants, respectively, whilst 7.6% experienced citrate reactions. New AR (i.e., allergic reactions and symptoms associated with iron deficiency) were reported as well. The occurrence of AR was linked to risk factors (i.e., female gender, young age, first-time donation, and thrombocytapheresis). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> This survey yielded a more comprehensive AR spectrum, revealed a prolonged time to symptom onset, and identified risk factors for AR. This novel information could be implemented in an amended informed consent addressing common and rare AR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document