Qualitative Assessment of Early Adverse Effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines by Telephone Interviews.

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.

Gender-based disparities on health indices during COVID-19 crisis: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Jordan.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has an inevitable burden on public health, potentially widening the gender gap in healthcare and the economy. We aimed to assess gender-based desparities during COVID-19 in Jordan in terms of health indices, mental well-being and economic burden. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1300 participants ≥18 years living in Jordan were selected using stratified random sampling. Data were collected via telephone interviews in this cross-sectional study. Chi-square was used to test age and gender differences according to demographics, economic burden, and health indices (access to healthcare, health insurance, antenatal and reproductive services). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the beta-coefficient (ß) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of factors correlated with mental well-being, assessed by patients' health questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4). RESULTS: 656 (50.5%) men and 644 (49.5%) women completed the interview. Three-fourths of the participants had health insurance during the COVID-19 crisis. There was no significant difference in healthcare coverage or access between women and men (p > 0.05). Half of pregnant women were unable to access antenatal care. Gender was a significant predictor of higher PHQ-4 scores (women vs. men: ß: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.54-1.22). Among women, age ≥ 60 years and being married were associated with significantly lower PHQ-4 scores. Only 0.38% of the overall participants lost their jobs; however, 8.3% reported a reduced payment. More women (13.89%) were not paid during the crisis as compared with men (6.92%) (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed no gender differences in healthcare coverage or access during the COVID-19 crisis generally. Women in Jordan are experiencing worse outcomes in terms of mental well-being and economic burden. Policymakers should give priority to women's mental health and antenatal and reproductive services. Financial security should be addressed in all Jordanian COVID-19 national plans because the crisis appears widening the gender gap in the economy.

Predictors of adherence with home quarantine during COVID-19 crisis: the case of health belief model.

Although Jordan has applied lockdown in response to COVID-19 pandemic, many people were not adherent to the quarantine. We aimed to examine the attitudes of the Jordanians and how these attitudes can predict their adherence using the health belief model (HBM). A cross-sectional study of 5057 participants using an internet-based questionnaire was conducted during lockdown. Multivariable ordinal regression analyses were used to estimate predictors of adherence to home quarantine. Overall, 646 (12.8%), 2078 (41.2%), and 2317 (46%) of participants showed poor, intermediate, and strict adherence, respectively. Of the HBM constructs, seriousness (ß= 0.116, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.205), benefits (ß= 0.056, 95% CI 0.002 to 0.110) and barriers (ß= -0.025, 95% CI -0.035 to -0.015) were significant predictors. We identified income insecurity (ß= -0.096, 95% CI -0.144 to -0.046), social withdrawal (ß= -0.062, 95% CI -0.121 to -0.004), religious concerns (ß= -0.149, 95% CI -0.202 to -0.096) and health consequences (ß= 0.065, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.11) as barriers. Governmental instructions were the only predictive external cue (ß= 0.055, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.014). Our findings suggest that a high number of Jordanians are adherent with the quarantine, demonstrating the ability of governmental policies in tackling potential barriers.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health: early quarantine-related anxiety and its correlates among Jordanians.

BACKGROUND: Jordan implemented a nationwide lockdown and recommended self-quarantine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such measures are expected to have consequences on mental health. AIMS: In this study, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of quarantine-related anxiety and its socioeconomic correlates. METHODS: An online questionnaire was utilized to collect information about quarantine-related anxiety and related factors from a non-representative sample of Jordanian population in March 2020. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was used to ascertain the level of stress. Using STATA 16, multivariable ordinal logistic regression was done to estimate beta-coefficient (ß) and corresponding 95% CI of the anxiety level. RESULTS: Overall, 5274 participants returned the survey. The prevalence of mild, moderate, and severe anxiety was 21.5%, 10.9%, and 6%, respectively. Female gender (ß= 0.47, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59) and more members of the household (ß= 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.07) were correlated with a higher degree of anxiety, while older age (ß= -0.27, 95% CI: -0.33 to -0.20), having larger social network (ß= -0.17, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.13), social support (ß= -0.28, 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.23), and higher income (>2000 Jordanian Dinars vs reference, ß= -0.52, 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.33) were correlated with lower BAI scores. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that approximately four out of every ten participants experienced quarantine-related anxiety. Younger participants, women, and people with poor social support were more likely to experience quarantine-related anxiety. These findings highlight the importance of targeting these groups to mitigate the consequence of home quarantine on public health.

The short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on spine surgeons: a cross-sectional global study.

PURPOSE: The outbreak of COVID-19 erupted in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. In a few weeks, it progressed rapidly into a global pandemic which resulted in an overwhelming burden on health care systems, medical resources and staff. Spine surgeons as health care providers are no exception. In this study, we try to highlight the impact of the crisis on spine surgeons in terms of knowledge, attitude, practice and socioeconomic burden. METHODS: This was global, multicentric cross-sectional study on 781 spine surgeons that utilized an Internet-based validated questionnaire to evaluate knowledge about COVID-19, availability of personal protective equipment, future perceptions, effect of this crisis on practice and psychological distress. Univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the predictors for the degree of COVID-19 effect on practice. RESULTS: Overall, 20.2%, 52% and 27.8% of the participants were affected minimally, intermediately and hugely by COVID-19, respectively. Older ages (ß = 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.56), orthopedic spine surgeons (ß = 0.30, 95% CI 0.01-0.61) and those who work in the private sector (ß = 0.05, 95% CI 0.19-0.61) were the most affected by COVID-19. Those who work in university hospitals (ß = - 0.36, 95% CI 0.00 to - 0.71) were affected the least. The availability of N95 masks (47%) and disposable eye protectors or face shields (39.4%) was significantly associated with lower psychological stress (p = 0.01). Only 6.9%, 3.7% and 5% had mild, moderate and severe mental distress, respectively. CONCLUSION: While it is important to recognize the short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of spine surgery, predicting where we will be standing in 6-12 months remains difficult and unknown. The COVID-19 crisis will probably have an unexpected long-term impact on lives and economies.