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 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 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.

scholarly journals Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Egyptian healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rehab H. El-Sokkary ◽  
Omnia S. El Seifi ◽  
Hebatallah M. Hassan ◽  
Eman M. Mortada ◽  
Maiada K. Hashem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Work Experience ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Initial Step ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has raised concerns about vaccine hesitancy in general and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in particular. Understanding the factors driving the uncertainty regarding vaccination against COVID-19 is crucial. Methods This cross-sectional study was designed to identify the perceptions and attitudes of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards COVID-19 vaccines and determine the predictive factors that affect their willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. An online survey was distributed among HCWs to collect data assessing demographic and general characteristics of the participants and vaccine-related characteristics, including source of information about the vaccine. In addition to items assessing the perception of COVID-19, there were items on COVID-19 vaccines and attitude towards vaccination in general and towards COVID-19 vaccines in particular. Results The participants were classified according to their willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine as follows: hesitant (41.9%), refusing (32.1%), and willing (26%). Statistically significant differences were observed among the three groups for the perception of COVID-19 vaccines, attitude towards vaccination in general, and COVID-19 vaccines in particular (p < 0.01). Conclusions Although the participants adequately perceived COVID-19 severity, prevention, and COVID-19 vaccine safety, they were widely hesitant or refused to be vaccinated. A multidimensional approach is required to increase the vaccine acceptability rate. Higher income and increased years of work experience are positive predictors of willingness to receive a vaccine. Thus, further studies addressing the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy are warranted as an initial step to build trust in COVID-19 vaccination efforts with continuous monitoring of attitudes and practices of HCWs towards COVID-19 vaccines in the future.

scholarly journals Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine among the Healthcare Workers in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: A Cross Sectional Study

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 666
Author(s):  
Oladele Vincent Adeniyi ◽  
David Stead ◽  
Mandisa Singata-Madliki ◽  
Joanne Batting ◽  
Matthew Wright ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Level Of Education ◽  
Vaccine Refusal ◽  
High Level

Background: This study assesses the perceptions and acceptance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. It also examines its influencing factors among the healthcare workers (HCWs) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Methods: In this cross-sectional study performed in November and December 2020, a total of 1308 HCWs from two large academic hospitals participated in the Eastern Cape Healthcare Workers Acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 (ECHAS) study. Validated measures of vaccine hesitancy were explored using a questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Results: The majority were nurses (45.2%), and at risk for unfavourable Covid-19 outcome, due to obesity (62.9%) and having direct contact with individuals confirmed to have Covid-19 (77.1%). The overall acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was 90.1%, which differed significantly by level of education. Individuals with lower educational attainment (primary and secondary education) and those with prior vaccine refusal were less likely to accept the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. However, positive perceptions about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were independently associated with vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: The high level of acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is reassuring; however, HCWs with a lower level of education and those with prior vaccine refusal should be targeted for further engagements to address their concerns and fears.

scholarly journals Spain’s Hesitation at the Gates of a COVID-19 Vaccine

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Eguia ◽  
Franco Vinciarelli ◽  
Marina Bosque-Prous ◽  
Troels Kristensen ◽  
Francesc Saigí-Rubió
Keyword(s):  
Regression Models ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Robust Variance ◽  
Vaccination Hesitancy

(1) Background: This study aims to delineate a pattern on vaccine hesitancy in a sample of the Spanish population, considering age groups and status as healthcare workers. (2) Methods: Participants were recruited using Twitter® as a dissemination tool to reach as many respondents as possible in different parts of the Spanish territory. The participants were recruited in a cross-sectional study, which included answering an online questionnaire. Data were collected from 10 September through 23 November 2020. Respondents answered questions asking whether they intended to be vaccinated and provided the main reason for their answers. To estimate associations between vaccination hesitancy and independent variables, we fit Poisson regression models with robust variance. (3) Results: One thousand and two responses were obtained, of which only 731 were validated. One hundred and sixty-four participants stated that they would not be vaccinated (22.43%), of which 20–24% were non-health workers or unemployed, 17.5% physicians, 31.5% other health workers, and almost 35% nurses. Concerns about lack of effectiveness of the vaccination, lack of safety when vaccinating and possibly dangerous adverse effects were the main causes provided. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that more interventions are needed to achieve better communication with the population and health professionals. Receptiveness to the message of the importance and security of the COVID-19 vaccination could be an important strategy for improving these results.

Psychosocial Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Frontline Healthcare Workers in Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quratul-Ain Zafar
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Emotional Distress ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Psychosocial Impact ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline healthcare workers in Pakistan in terms of psychological factors emotional distress, insomnia, and burnout. Study Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: This study was conducted at different hospitals across Pakistan and data collection was carried out from 15th June 2020 till 15th August 2020. Material and Methods: This was a questionnaire-based study aiming to compare the levels of burnout and emotional distress between frontline COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 healthcare workers. Any physician, nurse, and other healthcare workers were recruited from emergency care units and Covid-19 care units (target group), and non-COVID-19 care units (control group). Participation was voluntary and participants had to complete self-reported questionnaires and scales. A mixed-mode data collection was carried out, either in paper or web-based form to ensure maximum participation. Results: The independent t-test showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding depression, stress, and insomnia. The study group showed higher scores for these factors than the control group. Chi-square test of association revealed significant scores of burnout and professional fulfillment in both groups. There was a higher prevalence of burnout in the study group than in the control group. Conclusion: This study concludes that there was a significant psychosocial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the frontline healthcare workers measured in terms of emotional distress, insomnia, and burnout.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document