scholarly journals Assessing Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study at an Italian Paediatric Hospital and the Development of a Healthcare Worker’s Vaccination Compliance Index

Vaccines ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Paoli ◽  
Chiara Lorini ◽  
Francesco Puggelli ◽  
Antonino Sala ◽  
Maddalena Grazzini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Intervention Program ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Paediatric Hospital ◽  
System A ◽  
Strategic Training

Healthcare workers (HCWs) in paediatric hospitals are an important source of advice on vaccinations, but vaccine hesitancy can affect even these professionals. The aim of this study is to assess this phenomenon, measuring it by means of a scoring system. A survey was conducted in five departments of an Italian paediatric university hospital of national interest. Vaccination against influenza was considered a behavioral indicator of vaccination uptake. Using the collected data, the healthcare worker’s vaccination compliance index (HVCI) was computed. The results demonstrate statistically significant differences between departments and professional profiles. Nearly 80% of the sample was not immunized against seasonal influenza. According to the HVCI scores, the most hesitant departments are the intensive care unit, emergency room, and oncohematology department, while the most hesitant professional profiles are nurses and auxiliary staff. The score of the unvaccinated is significantly lower than that of the vaccinated, and the same difference was found between those who self-perceive to be skilled versus unskilled. The HVCI score was statistically verified as a predictive parameter to assess vaccination against seasonal influenza. By means of strategic training policies, both HVCI and perceived skills could be improved, suggesting that hospital management should draw a complex intervention program to fight against hesitancy.

Prevalence of Thyroid Diseases in an Occupationally Radiation Exposed Group: A Cross-Sectional Study in a University Hospital of Southern Italy

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 803-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Vimercati ◽  
Luigi De Maria ◽  
Francesca Mansi ◽  
Antonio Caputi ◽  
Giovanni M. Ferri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Southern Italy ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Thyroid Diseases ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Exposed Workers

Background: Thyroid diseases occur more frequently in people exposed to ionizing radiation, but the relationship between occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and thyroid pathologies still remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of thyroid diseases in healthcare workers exposed to low-level ionizing radiation compared with a control group working at the University Hospital of Bari, Southern Italy, and living in the same geographical area, characterized by mild iodine deficiency. Methods: We ran a cross-sectional study to investigate whether healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation had a higher prevalence of thyroid diseases. Four hundred and forty-four exposed healthcare workers (241 more exposed, or “A Category”, and 203 less exposed, or “B Category”) and 614 nonexposed healthcare workers were enrolled during a routine examination at the Occupational Health Unit. They were asked to fill in an anamnestic questionnaire and undergo a physical examination, serum determination of fT3, fT4 and TSH, anti-TPO ab and anti-TG ab and ultrasound neck scan. Thyroid nodules were submitted to fine needle aspiration biopsy when indicated. Results: The prevalence of thyroid diseases was statistically higher in the exposed workers compared to controls (40% vs 29%, adPR 1.65; IC95% 1.34-2.07). In particular, the thyroid nodularity prevalence in the exposed group was approximately twice as high as that in the controls (29% vs 13%; adPR 2.83; IC95% 2.12-3.8). No statistically significant association was found between exposure to ionizing radiation and other thyroid diseases. Conclusion: In our study, mild ionizing radiation-exposed healthcare workers had a statistically higher prevalence of thyroid diseases than the control group. The results are likely due to a closer and more meticulous health surveillance programme carried out in the ionising radiation-exposed workers, allowing them to identify thyroid alterations earlier than non-exposed health staff.

scholarly journals Healthcare Workers’ Perspectives on the Upcoming COVID-19 Vaccine in Terms of Their Exposure to the Influenza Vaccine in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 465
Author(s):  
Leena R. Baghdadi ◽  
Shatha G. Alghaihb ◽  
Alanoud A. Abuhaimed ◽  
Dania M. Alkelabi ◽  
Rawan S. Alqahtani
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccine ◽  
History Of

In 2019, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)) caused a global pandemic. There was an urgent need to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 to reduce its spread and economic burden. The main objective of this study was to understand the attitudes and concerns of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine, whether their decision was influenced by their history of taking the seasonal influenza vaccine, and factors that influence the acceptance of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. This was a cross-sectional study conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We selected and surveyed 356 HCWs via an electronic self-administered questionnaire. A total of 61.16% of HCWs were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and 55.9% of them had received the seasonal influenza vaccine in the preceding year (2019–2020). The strongest predictors for taking the COVID-19 vaccine were the HCWs’ belief that the COVID-19 vaccine would be safe, needed even for healthy people, that all HCWs should be vaccinated against COVID-19, and that HCWs will have time to take the vaccine. Being female, being middle aged, having <5 years of work experience, having no fear of injections, and being a non-smoker were predictive factors for taking the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. No associations were found between the intention to take the COVID-19 vaccine and a history of taking the seasonal influenza vaccine.

scholarly journals Hand hygiene knowledge, perception and practice of healthcare workers in a Turkish university hospital intensive care unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (08) ◽  
pp. 744-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uluhan Sili ◽  
Pinar Ay ◽  
Huseyin Bilgin ◽  
Seyhan Hidiroglu ◽  
Volkan Korten
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
World Health ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Cross Sectional

Introduction: While improvement of hand hygiene (HH) compliance is considered as the best approach to reduce healthcare-associated infections, the instructional interventions in HH among healthcare workers of intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital was not successful enough. The following study was conducted to evaluate HH knowledge, perception, practice and effectiveness of the trainings among healthcare workers of ICU in our hospital. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the ICU containing 8 medical and 16 surgical beds with 284 filled questionnaires about HH knowledge and 1187 observed opportunities for HH compliance. Results: Overall observed HH compliance rate was 40.6%; lowest compliance was 21.7% for “before clean/aseptic procedure” indication and highest compliance was 68.6% for “after touching a patient” indication. Although > 90% healthcare workers correctly identified the World Health Organization’s five indications for HH, 82 – 85% failed to recognize non-indications, i.e. when it was not necessary to perform HH. Our study showed that 15.1% of healthcare workers neither received nor felt the need for HH training. Conclusions: Despite regular HH trainings, healthcare workers could not differentiate when HH was not required which suggested failure to understand HH rationale. This may explain poor HH compliance rates. A systematic study is needed in order to find out the reasons behind of this noncompliance and improve HH training methods for educating healthcare workers.

Screening for Tuberculosis Infection in Spanish Healthcare Workers Comparison of the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube Test with the Tuberculin Skin Test

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 876-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Elisa Àlvarez-León ◽  
Elizabeth Espinosa-Vega ◽  
Évora Santana-Rodríguez ◽  
Jesús M. Molina-Cabrillana ◽  
Jose Luis Pérez-Arellano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Result ◽  
Tuberculin Skin Test ◽  
Skin Test ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Latent Tuberculosis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Negative Results

Objective.The risk of latent tuberculosis (LTBI) in healthcare workers (HCWs) is high. Until recently, the tuberculin skin test (TST) was the only diagnostic test available for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, the QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) test, was recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an alternative test for the diagnosis of LTBI in HCWs. The purpose of our study was to compare the TST and the QFT-G test in Spanish HCWs in order to improve procedures for the detection of LTBI.Methods.A cross-sectional study with blinded comparison of TST and QFT-G test results was carried out among 134 HCWs at an 800-bed Spanish university hospital. The level of interferon-7 production stimulated by the QFT-G test was measured. A concentration of at least 0.35 IU/mL was considered a positive result. An induration of at least 5 mm in non-BCG-vaccinated or at least 15 mm in BCG-vaccinated HCWs for the TST was considered positive.Results.Of the 134 HCWs included (mean age, 33.4 years; 101 [75.4%] women; 47 [35.1%] BCG vaccinated), the LTBI prevalence diagnosed with any test was 11.2% (95% confidence interval, 6.6%-18.1%), with the TST was 8.96%, and with the QFT-G test was 5.97% (nonsignificant differences). The QFT-G test value was higher in subjects with TST induration of at least 15 mm than in subjects with TST induration of less than 15 mm (P < .001). Overall agreement between the results of the two tests was found in 94% of HCWs (K = 0.56), but agreement was only 59% in HCWs who had a positive result for both tests. Disagreement was present in the results found for 5% of HCWs.Conclusions.Few studies have compared both tests in populations with high M. tuberculosis exposure but low BCG vaccination prevalence. Agreement between both tests is high, especially among negative Results. Studies are needed to clarify the reasons for disagreement and to establish the best TST and QFT-G test cutoff point.

scholarly journals Vaccine Hesitancy: COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccine Willingness among Parents in Wuxi, China—A Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Qiang Wang ◽  
Shixin Xiu ◽  
Shuangyu Zhao ◽  
Jianli Wang ◽  
Ying Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Eastern China ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Expanded Program On Immunization ◽  
Influenza Vaccinations ◽  
Vaccination Hesitancy

Objectives: We aimed to (1) assess parental hesitancy about category A (Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)) and B (non-EPI) vaccines, (2) assess parental willingness for COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations, and (3) explore the association of vaccination hesitancy of parents and healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: The study was performed in Wuxi, eastern China between 21 September 2020 and 17 October 2020. Parents of children aged <18 years and HCWs were recruited from the selected immunization clinics. Vaccine hesitancy was assessed using the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) vaccine hesitancy survey (VHS) by summing the total score for 10 items (maximum 50 points). Results: A total of 3009 parents and 86 HCWs were included in the analysis. The category A VHS scores were significantly higher than the category B VHS scores (p = 0.000). Overall, 59.3% and 52.4% of parents reported willingness to avail COVID-19 and influenza vaccination for their children, respectively; 51.2% of the HCWs wanted to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Parental category B VHS scores were associated with HCW category B VHS scores (r = 0.928, p = 0.008). Conclusions: In China, parents are more hesitant about category B vaccines than category A vaccines. More than 40% of parents showed hesitancy and a refusal to use COVID-19 and influenza vaccines.

scholarly journals Vaccine hesitancy and non-vaccination in an Irish paediatric outpatient population

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
SO Whelan ◽  
F Moriarty ◽  
L Lawlor ◽  
K Gorman ◽  
J Beamish
Keyword(s):  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Paediatric Hospital ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Paediatric Outpatient ◽  
Childhood Vaccines

AbstractObjectiveTo administer the Parent Attitudes Childhood Vaccines (PACV) questionnaire to assess vaccine hesitancy and its relationship with non-vaccination.DesignA cross-sectional study using the 15-item PACV questionnaire, with sociodemographic questions.SettingOutpatient department in a tertiary paediatric hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ParticipantsParents/caregivers of children attending general paediatric clinics.Main outcome measuresPACV score and reported non-vaccination. We assessed sociodemographic factors associated with PACV score and accuracy of the PACV in predicting non-vaccination.ResultsIn total, 436 participants completed the questionnaire. 5.5% of our population reported non-vaccination. HPV and MMR vaccines were the most commonly cited vaccines of concern (11.5% and 6.7% respectively) and autism spectrum disorder was the most commonly side effect of concern (4.3%). Mean PACV score was 26.9 (SD 19.1), with a significant difference between non-vaccinators and vaccinators (53.2 vs 25.3, p<0.001). Safety and efficacy concerns were the major contributor to non-vaccination. 14.4% of our population were vaccine-hesitant using the conventional cut-off score, which increased to 22% when using an optimal cut-off which maximised sensitivity and specificity. The accuracy of the PACV score to identify non-vaccination was good (area under the ROC curve = 0.827) and the optimal cut-off had a high negative predictive value (98.5%).ConclusionsPACV identified non-vaccination with high accuracy in our population. It may be useful to screen vaccine hesitant parents who could benefit from interventions to improve uptake.

scholarly journals Healthcare workers high COVID-19 infection rate: the source of infections and potential for respirators and surgical masks to reduce occupational infections

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lotta-Maria A. H. Oksanen ◽  
Enni Sanmark ◽  
Sampo Oksanen ◽  
Veli-Jukka Anttila ◽  
Jussi J. Paterno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Rate ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Tertiary Hospitals ◽  
Occupational Infections

Objective: To analyse the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and trace the source of COVID-19 infections in tertiary hospitals healthcare workers in light of the used PPE and their ability to maintain social distances and follow governmental restrictions. Design: Cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary hospitals in Uusimaa region, Finland Participants: Of 1072 enrolled, 866 HCWs (588 nurses, 170 doctors and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) from the Helsinki University Hospital completed the questionnaire by July 15th, 2020. The average age of participants was 42.4 years and 772 (89.0%) were women. The participants answered a detailed questionnaire of their PPE usage, ability to follow safety restrictions, exposure to COVID-19, the source of potential COVID-19 infection and both mental and physical symptoms during the first wave of COVID-19 in Finland. Main outcome measures: All participants with COVID-19 symptoms were tested with either RT-PCR or antibody tests. The infections were traced and categorised based on the location and source of infection. The possibility to maintain social distance and PPE usage during exposure were analyzed. Results: Of the HCWs that participated, 41 (4.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, marking a substantially higher infection rate than that of the general population (0.3%); 22 (53.6%) of infections were confirmed or likely occupational, including 7 (31.8%) from colleagues. Additionally, 5 (26.3%) of other infections were from colleagues outside the working facilities. 14 (63.6%) of occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and aerosol precautions while treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: While treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, HCWs should wear an FFP2/3 respirator and recommended PPE. Maintaining safety distances in the workplace and controlling infections between HCWs should be priorities to ensure safe working conditions.

scholarly journals Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan: The paradigm of Confidence, Convenience and Complacency; A Cross-sectional study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naveen Siddique Sheikh ◽  
Mumtaz Touseef ◽  
Riddah Sultan ◽  
Kanwal Hassan Cheema ◽  
Sidra Shafiq Cheema ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Population Data ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Vaccination Programs

Background and objectives: Vaccine hesitancy is a big obstacle for vaccination programs, as is anticipated for the COVID-19 vaccination program, resulting in low uptake of vaccines thereby hindering the process of reaching herd immunity. Bearing this in mind the current study was aimed to explore the determinants of vaccine hesitancy amongst the Pakistani population. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was carried out from the 23rd-31st January 2021. The conceptual framework of the study was based on the 3Cs (Confidence, Convenience, Complacency) model. Google-forms-based questionnaire was disseminated amongst the general population. Data collected were entered into SPSS version 26 and analyzed. Results: Of the 421 participants, 68.4% were females. Non-healthcare workers were 55.8% of respondents. Vaccine hesitant individuals, 26.13% reported they were very unlikely to get vaccinated. Vaccine was not safe as it came out too fast was agreed upon by 12.6% individuals, 50.6% were worried about experiencing side-effects, 18% believed vaccine will not offer protection and 5.9% believed vaccine would cause death. Low Practice of SOP in non-Healthcare workers was the strongest contributor to vaccine hesitancy (OR: 5.338, p=0.040, 95% CI: 1.082-26.330) followed by High complacency (p=0.026) and Moderate Complacency (OR: 0.212, p=0.007, 95% CI: 0.069-0.654) towards COVID-19 vaccination. In Healthcare workers the strongest contributor to vaccine hesitancy was having a Moderate Confidence (OR: 0.323, p=0.042, 95% CI: 0.109-0.958) in the vaccine followed by Moderate Convenience (OR: 0.304, p=0.049, 95% CI: 0.093-0.993) for vaccination Conclusion: Campaigning and communication strategies to reaffirm confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and educating the general population about the vaccine could lead to increased perception of vaccine safety and effectiveness thereby restoring confidence in vaccine and decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Likewise, working to increase vaccine convenience and decreasing complacency towards the COVID-19 vaccine would translate into high vaccine uptake.

scholarly journals Risk factors for norovirus infection in healthcare workers during nosocomial outbreaks: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Torén ◽  
Linus Schiöler ◽  
Nancy P. Nenonen ◽  
Charles Hannoun ◽  
Anette Roth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Phylogenetic Analyses ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Norovirus Gii

Abstract Background Norovirus outbreaks cause severe medico-socio-economic problems affecting healthcare workers and patients. The aim of the study was to investigate prevalence of norovirus infection and risk factors for infection in healthcare workers during nosocomial outbreaks. Methods A cross-sectional study of norovirus infections in healthcare workers was performed in seven outbreak wards in a large university hospital. Packs (swab for rectal sampling, and questionnaire) were posted to healthcare workers on notification of a ward outbreak. Rectal samples were examined with norovirus-specific real-time PCR. Replies from questionnaires were analysed using logistic regression models with norovirus genogroup (G)II positive findings as dependent variable. The results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sequencing and phylogenetic analyses (1040 nucleotides) were used to characterize norovirus strains from healthcare workers. Cluster analyses included norovirus GII.4 strains detected in ward patients during the ongoing outbreaks. Results Of 308 packs issued to healthcare workers, 129 (42%) were returned. norovirus GII was detected in 26 healthcare workers (20.2%). Work in cohort care (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.4–16.3), work in wards for patients with dementia (OR 13.2, 95% CI 1.01–170.7), and having diarrhoea, loose stools or other gastrointestinal symptoms the last week (OR 7.7, 95% CI 2.5–27.2) were associated with increased norovirus prevalence in healthcare workers. Sequencing revealed norovirus GII.4 in healthcare workers samples, and strains detected in healthcare workers and ward patients during a given ward outbreak showed ≥ 99% similarity. Conclusion Norovirus positive findings in healthcare workers were strongly associated with symptomatic infection, close contact with sick patients, and dementia nursing.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Risk Factors of CoronaVac Side Effects: An Independent Cross-Sectional Study among Healthcare Workers in Turkey

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2629
Author(s):  
Abanoub Riad ◽  
Derya Sağıroğlu ◽  
Batuhan Üstün ◽  
Andrea Pokorná ◽  
Jitka Klugarová ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to mass vaccination strategies that need to be accelerated currently in order to achieve a substantial level of community immunity. Independent (non-sponsored) studies have a great potential to enhance public confidence in vaccines and accelerate their uptake process. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional study for the side effects (SE) of CoronaVac was carried out in February 2021 among Turkish healthcare workers who were recently vaccinated. The questionnaire inquired about local and systemic SEs that occurred in the short-term, within four weeks, following vaccination. Results: A total of 780 healthcare workers were included in this study; 62.5% of them experienced at least one SE. Injection site pain (41.5%) was the most common local SE, while fatigue (23.6%), headache (18.7%), muscle pain (11.2%) and joint pain (5.9%) were the common systemic SEs. Female healthcare workers (67.9%) were significantly more affected by local and systemic SEs than male colleagues (51.4%). Younger age, previous infection, and compromised health status (chronic illnesses and regular medicines uptake) can be associated with an increased risk of CoronaVac SEs; Conclusions: The independent research shows a higher prevalence of CoronaVac SEs than what is reported by phase I–III clinical trials. In general, the results of this study confirm the overall safety of CoronaVac and suggest potential risk factors for its SEs. Gender-based differences and SEs distribution among age groups are worth further investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document