Corrigendum: Covid-19 Lockdown in Spring 2020 in France Provided Unexpected Opportunity to Assess Health Impacts of Falls in Air Pollution(Front. Sustain. Cities, (2022), 3, (643821), 10.3389/frsc.2021.643821)

In the original article, there was a wording error on the way that the reduction percentages of air pollutant concentrations were expressed. It is not a reduction percentage but a percentage of increase that would have been observed in the absence of lockdown. A correction has been made to Discussion, “Summary of Findings,” first paragraph: We replaced the following sentences: “The mean reduction in PM10 concentrations was 8.3%, with values ranging from−1.8 to 39.8% depending on the municipality. For NO2 concentrations, the mean reduction was 29.0%, with values ranging from 3.5 to 187.8% depending on the municipality.” by: “The daily mean difference between the estimated PM10 level during lockdown and its reference (modeled concentrations without lockdown) was −8.3 μg.m−3. This difference was −2.1 μg.m−3 for NO2.”.In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The four columns entitled “Reduction percentage” were not defined. The corrected Table 2 appears below. The authors apologize for these errors and state that this doesnot change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated. Copyright © 2022 Adélaïde, Medina, Wagner, de Crouy-Chanel, Real, Colette, Couvidat, Bessagnet, Alter, Durou, Host, Hulin, Corso and Pascal.

Impact of air pollution on mortality in metropolitan France: reduction related to the spring 2020 lockdown and long-term impact for 2016-2019

Background - The reduction of socioeconomic activities related to the spring 2020 lockdown implemented to limit the spread of COVID-19 in France led to decreases in air pollutant concentrations. Methods - The quantitative health impact assessment method was used to estimate the impact on mortality of the French population: 1/in the short- and longer term, impacts of the decreases in particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels observed during the lockdown;and 2/in the long term, impact on the total burden for the years 2016-2019. Results - The limiting of socioeconomic activities in the spring of 2020 reduced NO2 and PM population's exposures that resulted in 2,300 deaths avoided in relation to PM and nearly 1,200 in relation to NO2. The long-term impact of air pollution on mortality is estimated at nearly 40,000 annual deaths attributable to PM2.5 exposure and nearly 7,000 deaths attributable to NO2 exposure. Conclusion - These results show that short-term reductions in air pollution levels are associated with rapid, measurable health benefits. They confirm that even short-term public actions that reduce air pollution levels (different from lockdown, which is obviously not desirable) appear to have a significant impact on health. Moreover, the results underline that on the long-term, although mortality related to ambient air pollution shows a slight downward trend, it remains a significant risk factor in France. Therefore, efforts to reduce air pollution and associated mortality must be pursued lastingly for all sources of air pollution through tailored, ambitious policies.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in French hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 vaccines have become the new hope for stemming the pandemic. We aimed to assess pre-launch vaccine acceptance among hospital workers in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Administrative Region of France. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional study involving all hospital workers in 11 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes hospitals in December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We analyzed completed questionnaires from 1,964 respondents (78% women, mean age 42 years, 21.5% physicians, 41% private care centers). A total of 1,048 (53%) hospital workers were in favor of COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with: female gender; young age; paramedical, technical, and administrative professions (i.e., all non-medical professions); no prior flu vaccination; and employment in the private medical care sector (p<0.05). Distrust of health authorities and pharmaceutical lobbying were the main obstacles to vaccination. Inversely, creating herd immunity and protecting patients and household members were the most frequently cited reasons in favor of vaccination. More than two-thirds of participants feared that the clinical and biological research was too rapid and worried about serious adverse effects. Most participants were interested in written information on the available vaccines, but the most vaccine-hesitant categories preferred oral information. Only 35% supported mandatory vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted written and oral information campaigns will be necessary to improve vaccination coverage among hospital workers who show a surprisingly high hesitancy rate. Imposing mandatory vaccination could be counterproductive.

Étude multicentrique des déterminants à la vaccination COVID-19 chez les travailleurs hospitaliers, en établissements publics et privés

Introduction La vaccination contre la COVID-19 est devenue le nouvel espoir pour enrayer la pandémie. Le but de cette étude était d’évaluer les freins et déterminants de cette vaccination parmi le personnel hospitalier, juste avant que ne débute la campagne officielle de vaccination. Matériels et méthodes Une étude transversale multicentrique a été menée auprès de l’ensemble des personnels hospitaliers de 11 hôpitaux et cliniques d’une région française en décembre 2020, afin d’évaluer les freins et les déterminants à la vaccination contre la COVID-19. Des analyses uni- et multivariées ont été effectuées pour identifier les facteurs associés à l’hésitation à la vaccination. Résultats Au total, 1964 réponses ont été analysées : 78 % de femme, âge moyen 42 ans, 21,5 % de profession médicale, 41 % travaillaient en établissement privé. Au total, 1048 (53 %) travailleurs hospitaliers étaient en faveur de la vaccination contre la COVID-19. Le genre féminin, le jeune âge, les professions paramédicales, techniques et administratives (c.-à-d. non médicales), ainsi que le secteur privé étaient associées de façon indépendante à une plus grande défiance envers le vaccin (p<0,05). La méfiance envers les autorités de santé et les lobbies pharmaceutiques étaient les principaux freins à la vaccination. À l’inverse, créer une immunité de groupe, protéger ses proches et ses patients étaient les principales motivations à la vaccination. Plus de 70 % des participants trouvaient que la période de recherche avait été trop courte. La plupart des participants étaient intéressés par une information écrite sur les vaccins disponibles, mais les catégories socioprofessionnelles les plus réticentes préféraient une information orale. Seuls 35 % étaient favorables à une obligation vaccinale. Conclusion Il existe une surprenante importante défiance vis-à-vis de la vaccination COVID-19 chez les travailleurs en établissements de santé. Sur la base des informations recueillies sur les freins à la vaccination, des campagnes d’information écrites, orales et surtout ciblées (selon la profession, l’âge, le type d’établissement…) seront nécessaires pour améliorer la couverture vaccinale des personnels hospitaliers. Rendre obligatoire la vaccination pourrait être contre-productif.