The Mediating Roles of Medical Mistrust, Knowledge, Confidence and Complacency of Vaccines in the Pathways from Conspiracy Beliefs to Vaccine Hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy, associated with medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines, presents an obstacle to the campaign against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy beliefs may be a key determinant of the success of vaccination campaigns. This study provides a conceptual framework to explain the impact of pathways from conspiracy beliefs to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with regard to medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines. METHODS: A non-probability study was conducted with 1015 respondents between 17 April and 28 May 2021. Conspiracy beliefs were measured using the coronavirus conspiracy scale of Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes, and Narratives Survey (OCEANS), and vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale. Medical mistrust was measured using the Oxford trust in doctors and developers questionnaire, and attitudes to doctors and medicine scale. Vaccine confidence and complacency were measured using the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine confidence and complacency scale. Knowledge of vaccines was measured using the vaccination knowledge scale. Vaccine hesitancy was measured using the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the measurement models for conspiracy beliefs, medical mistrust, confidence, complacency, and knowledge of vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. The structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to analyze the direct and indirect pathways from conspiracy beliefs to vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Of the 894 (88.1%) respondents who were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine without any hesitancy, the model fit with the CFA models for conspiracy beliefs, medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy was deemed acceptable. Conspiracy beliefs had significant direct (ß = 0.294), indirect (ß = 0.423) and total (ß = 0.717) effects on vaccine hesitancy; 41.0% of the total effect was direct, and 59.0% was indirect. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy by medical mistrust (ß = 0.210), confidence and complacency (ß = 0.095), knowledge (ß = 0.079) of vaccines, explaining 29.3, 11.0, and 13.2% of the total effects, respectively. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy through the sequential mediation of knowledge of vaccines and medical mistrust (ß = 0.016), explaining 2.2% of the total effects. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy through the sequential mediation of confidence and complacency, and knowledge of vaccines (ß = 0.023), explaining 3.2% of the total effects. The SEM approach indicated an acceptable model fit (χ2/df = 2.464, RMSEA = 0.038, SRMR = 0.050, CFI = 0.930, IFI = 0.930). CONCLUSIONS: The sample in this study showed lower vaccine hesitancy, and this study identified pathways from conspiracy beliefs to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in China. Conspiracy beliefs had direct and indirect effects on vaccine hesitancy, and the indirect association was determined through medical mistrust, confidence, complacency, and knowledge of vaccines. In addition, both direct and indirect pathways from conspiracy beliefs to vaccine hesitancy were identified as intervention targets to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Association between resilience and burnout of front-line nurses at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: Positive and negative affect as mediators in Wuhan.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is having a dramatic effect on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs). Upon the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese government dispatched about 42 000 HCWs to Wuhan City and Hubei Province to fight this pandemic. This study briefly examines front-line nurses who experienced burnout, with the main objective of investigating the mediating roles of positive and negative affect in the relationship between resilience and burnout in Wuhan hospitals at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 180 front-line nurses voluntarily participated via a social media group. They completed the online questionnaires, including the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), demographics, and work-related characteristics. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was used to examine the mediating effect of positive and negative affect on the relationship between resilience and burnout. The total prevalence of burnout was 51.7%, of which 15.0% were severe burnout. These preliminary results revealed that positive and negative affect fully mediated the effects of resilience on burnout, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment of front-line nurses. It is necessary to know the impact of resilience on HCWs with burnout through the positive and negative affect of individual backgrounds and situations, and how policymakers can deploy resilience interventions to support front-line HCWs.

East-West differences in clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is currently not under control. We aimed to assess whether there are differences in clinical manifestations between COVID-19 patients from the East (East and South-East Asian countries including China, South Korea, and Thailand) and the West (North American, European, and Middle East countries, including the United States, Italy, France, and Iran). For this meta-analysis, we searched for eligible studies about COVID-19 in three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were divided into two cohorts for analysis: the East and the West. Stata 13.1 software was used for the meta-analysis. Of the 1527 studies initially identified by the literature search, 169 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Fifty-seven of these, describing 19,353 patients, were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these, 45 studies with 8416 patients were from the East while 12 studies with 10,937 patients were from the West. The results indicated that the incidences of cough, headache, dizziness, nasal congestion, and digestive symptoms in COVID-19 patients from the East were lower than those in the West. The laboratory data showed that there were no significant differences in the levels of lymphocytes, leukocytes, C-reactive protein, and platelet counts between the two groups. In addition, our results also showed that the incidence of cardiac and kidney injury, as well as increased levels of creatinine, alanine transaminase, and aspartate transaminase, were significantly higher in patients from the West than from the East. Our meta-analysis indicated that there are differences in the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in patients from the East and the West. COVID-19 patients from the West appear to suffer more severe liver, kidney, and heart damage due to SARS-CoV-2.