COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Rural Appalachian Healthcare Workers (Eastern Kentucky/West Virginia): A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Healthcare workers are among the first group to receive coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) vaccine, and their attitude towards the vaccine is likely to affect vaccine acceptance among general population. We aimed to study the attitude of HCWs towards COVID-19 vaccine and determine the factors associated with it.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted through a written questionnaire prior to first dose of COVID-19 vaccine in the month of January, 2021, at a district hospital in Ludhiana, Punjab. HCWs were categorized as having negative, positive or mixed attitude based on their response to a written questionnaire. Data was analysed using SPSS version 24.0.Results: More than half of the participants had negative attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine (N=274, 54.5%), while less than a third had positive attitude (N=141, 28.0%) and rest had mixed attitude (N=88, 17.5%). Younger HCWs (<50 years), nurses, females and those living with chronic medical or psychiatric illness showed higher chance of negative attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine, while doctors, paramedical staff, HCWs with higher qualification and urban dwellers had mixed response. On logistic regression analysis, being a female HCW was significantly associated with negative attitude while being a doctor or nurse was significantly associated with mixed attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine. Doubt regarding safety was the commonest response observed among all variables.Conclusions: In the presence of a high proportion of HCWs having negative attitude, targeted interventions should be planned to address specific concerns of HCWs, so as to increase the overall vaccine acceptance for COVID-19 vaccine.

Download Full-text

Knowledge, attitude, and acceptance of healthcare workers and the public regarding the COVID-19 vaccine: a cross-sectional study

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/s12889-021-10987-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Muhammed Elhadi ◽

Ahmed Alsoufi ◽

Abdulmueti Alhadi ◽

Amel Hmeida ◽

Entisar Alshareea ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Logistic Regression ◽

General Population ◽

Family Member ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Vaccine Uptake ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Vaccine Acceptance ◽

Binomial Logistic Regression

Abstract Background This study determined the knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding COVID-19 and assessed the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers and the general population. Methods A web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling in Libya from December 1 to 18, 2020 among the general population and healthcare workers. Data on demographic characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination-related concerns, knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding COVID-19, and knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance regarding the COVID-19 vaccine were collected using a self-administered survey. A binomial logistic regression was performed with 70% efficacy to determine the association between acceptance of the vaccine and study variables. Results Valid and complete responses were collected from 15,087 participants. Of these, 6227 (41.3%) were male and 8860 (58.7%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 30.6 ± 9.8 years. Moreover, 485 (3.2%) participants were infected with COVID-19 at the time of the study, while 2000 (13.3%) had been previously infected. Overall, 2452 (16.3%) participants agreed, and 3127 (20.7%) strongly agreed, with “having concerns about serious vaccine-related complications.” Mask-wearing adherence was reported by 10,268 (68.1%) of the participants. Most participants (14,050, 93.1%) believed that the vaccine should be provided for free, while 7272 (48.2%) were willing to buy it. Regarding vaccine acceptance and efficacy, 12,006 (79.6%) reported their willingness to take the vaccine with an efficacy of 90% or more, 9143 (60.6%) with an efficacy of 70% or more, and only 6212 (41.2%) with an efficacy of 50%. The binomial logistic regression revealed that vaccine acceptance was not associated with belonging to the medical field versus the general population. Acceptance was statistically associated with younger age groups, especially 31–40 (OR = 1.3 [1.09, 1.55]) and 41–50 years (OR = 1.29, [1.09, 1.54]). However, having a family member or friend infected with COVID-19 was positively associated with the likelihood of vaccine acceptance (OR = 1.09 [1.02, 1.18]), while having a friend or family member who died due to COVID-19 was negatively associated with it (OR = 0.89 [0.84, 0.97]). Conclusions Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine is an essential determinant of vaccine uptake and the likelihood of controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing strategies to decrease public hesitation and increase trust is vital for implementing vaccination programs.

Download Full-text

PERSONAL ATTITUDES AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIANS HAMPER PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION PROGRAMS IN HEALTHCARE WORKERS: INSIGHTS FROM A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

10.26226/morressier.5731f0d6d462b8029237fd3a ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Carlo Signorelli

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Workers ◽

Pneumococcal Vaccination ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Vaccination Programs ◽

Occupational Physicians ◽

Personal Attitudes

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Dentistry and Oral Sciences ◽

10.37191/mapsci-2582-3736-2(4)-054 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The Influence of Efficacy Beliefs on Interpersonal Loneliness Among Front-Line Healthcare Workers During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.3552645 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nana Jiang ◽

Xinhua Jia ◽

Zhanjun Qiu ◽

Yuanlong Hu ◽

Tongying Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Efficacy Beliefs ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Front Line ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Novel Coronavirus

Download Full-text

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

Endocrine Metabolic & Immune Disorders - Drug Targets ◽

10.2174/1871530318666181102114627 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (6) ◽

pp. 803-808 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

Thorax ◽

10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215414 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 75 (12) ◽

pp. 1089-1094 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Adrian Shields ◽

Sian E Faustini ◽

Marisol Perez-Toledo ◽

Sian Jossi ◽

Erin Aldera ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Venous Blood ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Sectional Study ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

General Internal ◽

Increased Risk

ObjectiveTo determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers.DesignA cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020.SettingUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK.Participants545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded.InterventionParticipants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked.Main outcome measureProportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.ResultsThe point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02).Conclusions and relevanceWe identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.

Download Full-text

Infectivity of healthcare workers diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) approximately 2 weeks after onset of symptoms: A cross-sectional study

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.1420 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Yves Longtin ◽

Hugues Charest ◽

Caroline Quach ◽

Patrice Savard ◽

Mariana Baz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Symptom Onset ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Positive Culture ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Viral Shedding ◽

Viral Culture ◽

Respiratory Coronavirus ◽

Respiratory Specimens

Abstract We performed viral culture of respiratory specimens in 118 severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–infected healthcare workers (HCWs), ∼2 weeks after symptom onset. Only 1 HCW (0.8%) had a positive culture. No factors for prolonged viral shedding were identified. Infectivity is resolved in nearly all HCWs ∼2 weeks after symptom onset.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.3390/vaccines9050465 ◽

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.

Download Full-text