COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Saudi Arabian population.

This study aimed to measure the level of vaccine hesitancy among the Saudi population using the WHO Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). A cross-sectional study using a modified vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) was conducted among Saudi Arabian residents between April 4 and May 24, 2021. The relationship between participants' willingness to uptake COVID-19 vaccines and their demographics, awareness of COVID-19, and health status was evaluated. The chi-square test was employed to compare categorical variables and logistic regression for the associations of demographical characteristics with acceptance of the vaccine. We received a total of 1657 completed responses. 1,126 participants (68%) were vaccinated, of which 19% were vaccinated with one dose only, and 49% were fully vaccinated (with two doses). Safety concerns and worries about side effects were higher among the hesitant group (p<0.001). 96% of the participants from the willing group were not hesitant to have the vaccine, whereas in the same group, 70% thought they had good health and the vaccine was not needed. Logistic regression analysis revealed that participants with chronic diseases had lower odds of being willing to be vaccinated (OR=0.583, p-value 0.04). The study findings suggest key factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Saudi population and can help public health authorities plan strategies to minimize vaccine hesitancy and improve awareness about vaccine acceptance.

Global Current Practices of Ventilatory Support Management in COVID-19 Patients: An International Survey.

BACKGROUND: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. METHODS: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. RESULTS: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. CONCLUSION: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.