Self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in Ethiopia, Africa: A cross-sectional study

Introduction Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa. Ethiopia received most of its COVID-19 vaccines through donations. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the first to be donated to Ethiopia by the COVAX facility. Healthcare workers were the priority population that received the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. However, there was no nationwide study on the safety of the vaccine in Ethiopia. This study aimed to measure the prevalence and predictors of self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. Materials and methods The study employed a cross-sectional design. A sample of healthcare workers who took Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was drawn from four regions of Ethiopia;namely, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, and Southwest. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, medical anamnesis, COVID-19 related anamnesis, and COVID-19 vaccine anamnesis via telephone interview. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done. The software, IBM SPSS Statistics v21.0, was used for analyses of data. Results Out of 384 people, 346 responded (response rate: 90.1%). Female accounted for 34.1% of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 31.0 years (Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.4). Nurses accounted for 43.7% of the respondents. The prevalence of at least one local- and systemic-side effect was 50.6 and 44.5%, respectively. The most frequent local- and systemic- side effect were injection site pain and headache, respectively. Both types of side effects mostly subsided in the first 3 days. A third of healthcare workers with side effects took at least one medication. Paracetamol followed by diclofenac sodium were taken by healthcare workers to overcome side effects. There was no independent predictor of local side effect. After controlling for age and chronic diseases, the odds of healthcare workers with COVID-19 like symptoms to experience systemic side effects was 1.38 (Confidence Interval (CI): 1.04–1.82) times more than that of healthcare workers without COVID-19 like symptoms. Conclusions The prevalence of local- and systemic-side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was modest. As the symptoms were mostly common in the first 3 days, it is preferable to monitor healthcare workers at least in the first 3 days following the administration of the vaccine.

Risk perceptions and attitudinal responses to COVID-19 pandemic: an online survey in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Effective risk communication is one of the critical strategies in the response to COVID-19. This study examined risk perceptions and attitudinal responses to COVID-19 among the educated section of the society in Ethiopia. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted from April 22 to May 04, 2020, in Ethiopia. A questionnaire addressing the perception of health threat-combination of perceived vulnerability (PV) and perceived seriousness (PS), and perceived efficacy-combinations of perceived response efficacy (PRE), perceived self-efficacy (PSE), and perceived collective efficacy (PCE). The data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0. Descriptive statistics were computed after the standardization of the scores. The scores for overall efficacy and threat were split by median value and response classifications were generated through threat by efficacy interactions. For statistical significance, 95% CI and p-value < 0.05 were used. RESULTS: A total of 929 respondents submitted their responses. Eight hundred and twenty-eight (89.1%) of the respondents were male and 753 (81.1%) were Christian. The perceived threat to COVID-19 was generally low (median = 58.3). The median score for overall efficacy, PRE, and PSE were 79.8, 87.5, and 80.0, respectively. However, the median value (66.7) for PCE was relatively low. Perceived threat significantly varied by age, education, occupation, and place of residence (p < 0.05). Perceived efficacy significantly differed by gender, residence, and use of some sources of information (p < 0.05). In terms of response to COVID-19, 290 (31.2%), 239 (25.7%), 175 (18.8%) and 225 (24.2%) of the respondents were in the responsive, pro-active, avoidant, and indifferent attitudinal categories, respectively. The avoidant and indifferent groups constituted a fear control response (mal-adaptive motivation towards COVID-19 protective behavior) whereas responsive and pro-active categories formed a danger control response (self-protective motivation). These responses varied significantly by residence, region, religion, and sources of information (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding people's perceived health threat and efficacy is a critical step toward creating risk communication campaigns. Hence, this study provided an insight that has the potential to inform the COVID-19 risk communication campaigns targeting the educated section of the society, by ensuring a balanced combination of threat appeals and efficacy messages for improved self-protective responses.

Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia: an online cross-sectional study to identify the need for equal attention of intervention.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led individuals to suffer from different levels of mental health problems such as psychological distress, anxiety, depression, denial, panic, and fear. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of psychological distress and associated factors among the Ethiopian population during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed through an online survey using different online platforms. The questionnaire was created through Google Form and the survey link was administered by e-mail, LinkedIn, Telegram, and Facebook. Educated Ethiopian population who have access to the internet were invited to participate through an online survey and addressed to 929 respondents. The study participants completed the survey anonymously without any personal identifier. The psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler 10-item tool to measure psychological distress. Data were analyzed using SPSS and logistic regression to examine mutually adjusted associations, expressed as adjusted odds ratios. A generalized additive model was also employed to identify additional predictors using R. RESULTS: The prevalence of high psychological distress among the study population was 236 (25.5%). Of all respondents, 421 (45.1%) had low psychological distress, 274 (29.4%) had moderate psychological distress, 164 (17.6%) had high psychological distress, and 72 (7.3%) had very high psychological distress. Psychological distress increased with being at young and middle-aged adults, getting information from social media, and not correctly practicing infection prevention and control measures to prevent COVID-19 infection. Respondents with high perceived severity had increased psychological distress. On the contrary, those with the highest score of perceived response efficacy had low distress. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of psychological distress was substantial. The need for intervention of psychological distress inline with the prevention of COVID-19 is critically essential. The intervention target groups are those whose information sources are from social media, young and middle-aged adults, and those who do not correctly practice infection prevention and control measures against COVID-19 infection.

Myths, beliefs, and perceptions about COVID-19 in Ethiopia: A need to address information gaps and enable combating efforts.

BACKGROUND: The endeavor to tackle the spread of COVID-19 effectively remains futile without the right grasp of perceptions and beliefs presiding in the community. Therefore, this study aimed to assess myths, beliefs, perceptions, and information gaps about COVID-19 in Ethiopia. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted in Ethiopia from April 22 to May 04, 2020. The survey link was promoted through emails, social media, and the Jimma University website. Perceptions about COVID-19 have considered the World Health Organization (WHO) resources and local beliefs. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 20.0. Classifications and lists of factors for each thematic perception of facilitators, inhibitors, and information needs were generated. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was executed to assist categorizations. Standardized mean scores of the categories were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests. A significant difference was claimed at p-value <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 929 responses were gathered during the study period. The EFA generated two main categories of perceived facilitators of COVID-19 spread: behavioral non-adherence (55.9%) and lack of enablers (86.5%). Behavioral non-adherence was illustrated by fear of stigma (62.9%), not seeking care (59.3%), and hugging and shaking (44.8%). Perceived lack of enablers of precautionary measures includes staying home impossible due to economic challenges (92.4%), overcrowding (87.6%), and inaccessible face masks (81.6%) and hand sanitizers (79.1%). Perceived inhibitors were categorized into three factors: two misperceived, myths (31.6%) and false assurances (32.9%), and one correctly identified; engagement in standard precautions (17.1%). Myths about protection from the virus involve perceived religiosity and effectiveness of selected food items, hot weather, traditional medicine, and alcohol drinking, ranging from 15.1% to 54.7%. False assurances include people's perception that they were living far away from areas where COVID-19 was rampant (36.9%), and no locally reported cases were present (29.5%). There were tremendous information needs reported about COVID-19 concerning protection methods (62.6%), illness behavior and treatment (59.5%), and quality information, including responses to key unanswered questions such as the origin of the virus (2.4%). Health workers were perceived as the most at-risk group (83.3%). The children, adolescents, youths were marked at low to moderate (45.1%-62.2%) risk of COVID-19. Regional, township, and access to communication showed significant variations in myths, false assurances, and information needs (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Considering young population as being at low risk of COVID-19 would be challenging to the control efforts, and needs special attention. Risk communication and community engagement efforts should consider regional and township variations of myths and false assurances. It should also need to satisfy information needs, design local initiatives that enhance community ownership of the control of the virus, and thereby support engagement in standard precautionary measures. All forms of media should be properly used and regulated to disseminate credible information while filtering out myths and falsehoods.