'COVID Is Coming, and I'm Bloody Scared': How Adults with Co-Morbidities' Threat Perceptions of COVID-19 Shape Their Vaccination Decisions.

Adults with comorbidities have faced a high risk from COVID-19 infection. However, Western Australia experienced relatively few infections and deaths from 2020 until early 2022 compared with other OECD countries, as hard border policies allowed for wide-scale vaccination before mass infections began. This research investigated the thoughts, feelings, risk perceptions, and practices of Western Australian adults with comorbidities aged 18-60 years in regard to COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted 14 in-depth qualitative interviews between January and April 2022, just as the disease was starting to circulate. We coded results inductively and deductively, combining the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) and vaccine belief models. Non-hesitant participants believed COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective at mitigating COVID-19's threat and subsequently got vaccinated. Vaccine hesitant participants were less convinced the disease was severe or that they were susceptible to it; they also did not consider the vaccines to be sufficiently safe. Yet, for some hesitant participants, the exogenous force of mandates prompted vaccination. This work is important to understand how people's thoughts and feelings about their comorbidities and risks from COVID-19 influence vaccine uptake and how mandatory policies can affect uptake in this cohort.

The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review.

Objectives: The global response to COVID-19 inherited a long history of preparedness features pertaining to various threats, including bioterrorism, (re)-emerging infectious diseases, and pandemics. We describe the evolution of pandemic preparedness frameworks, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted an integrative literature review of publicly available documents, including grey and scientific literature, on pandemic preparedness frameworks. We relied on social science literature as a main source and used search keywords: pandemic preparedness, H1N1, COVID-19, "whole-of-society"/"whole-of-community." Results: The H1N1 pandemic (2009-2010) tested pandemic preparedness frameworks. Lessons-learned reports concluded that the global H1N1 response were too strong and unnecessarily alarming. Such critiques, pandemic fatigue, and budgetary cuts post-2008 explain lack of preparedness for COVID-19. Critiques culminated in a shift towards a "whole-of-society" approach to health crises, although its uptake has not been ideal. Conclusion: Traditional preparedness regime limits arose again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The "whole-of-society" approach was not fully deployed in COVID-19 responses. A "whole-of-organizations" approach could be designed, ensuring that countries consider local organizations' potential to partake in containing infectious disease and counter undesirable side-effects of non-pharmaceutical measures.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe and map the research tools used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: In March 2022, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Source Nursing, Africa Wide and APA PsychInfo for peer-reviewed literature in English related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in SSA. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews to guide evidence gathering and as a template to present the evidence retrieval process. RESULTS: In the studies selected for review (n=72), several measurement tools were used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal. These measurements were willingness and intent to vaccinate from the perspectives of the general population, special population groups such as mothers, students and staff in academic institutions and healthcare workers and uptake as a proxy for measuring assumed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination were cost and affordability, convenience, distance and time to travel or time waiting for a vaccine and (dis)comfort. Although all studies measured COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal, relatively few studies (n=16, 22.2%) included explicit measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the gaps identified in the scoping review, we propose that future research on determinants of COVID-19 vaccination in SSA should further prioritise the inclusion of access-related variables. We recommend the development and use of standardised research tools that can operationalise, measure and disentangle the complex determinants of vaccine uptake in future studies throughout SSA and other low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings.

Who Said What: A Multi-Country Content Analysis of European Health Organisations' COVID-19 Social Media Communication.

Objectives: As a risk communication tool, social media was mobilised at an unprecedented level during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined health authorities' risk communication on social media in response to the pandemic in 2020. Methods: We analysed 1,633 COVID-19-related posts from 15 social media accounts managed by official health authorities in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Results: The rate at which the authorities posted about COVID-19 on social media fluctuated throughout 2020. Each account's posting frequency peaked between March and May 2020, before dropping considerably during the summer. The messages that the organisations focused on also varied throughout the year but covered most risk communication guidelines. Yet, our analysis highlighted themes that were communicated infrequently, such as long COVID or exercising during the pandemic. Conclusion: With more individuals now following health authorities on social media, platforms such as Instagram hold great potential for future risk communication campaigns and strategies.

Megatrends in Healthcare: Review for the Swiss National Science Foundation's National Research Programme 74 (NRP74) "Smarter Health Care".

Objectives: In this paper, we present a review of some relevant megatrends in healthcare conducted as part of the Swiss National Science Foundation's National Research Programme 74 (NRP74) "Smarter Health Care." Our aim is to stimulate discussions about long-term tendencies underlying the current and future development of the healthcare system. Methods: Our team-a multidisciplinary panel of researchers involved in the NRP74-went through an iterative process of internal consultations followed by a rapid literature review with the goal of reaching group consensus concerning the most relevant megatrends in healthcare. Results: Five megatrends were identified, namely: 1) Socio-demographic shifts. 2) Broadening meaning of "health." 3) Empowered patients and service users. 4) Digitalization in healthcare. 5) Emergence of new models of care. The main features of each megatrend are presented, drawing often on the situation in Switzerland as a paradigmatic example and adding reflections on the potential influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on them. Conclusion: Considering the long-term megatrends affecting the evolution of healthcare is important-amongst other things-to understand and contextualise the relevance and implications of innovative health services research results.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the continuity of care for at-risk patients in Swiss primary care settings: A mixed-methods study.

Continuity of care is important for the health of aging individuals with comorbidities. When initial coronavirus mitigation campaigns involved messaging such as "Stay at home-stay safe," and banned provision of non-urgent care, at-risk patients depending upon regular consultations with general practitioners (GPs) faced confusion about the possibility of seeking non-COVID-19 related healthcare. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, consisting of a quantitative component followed by a qualitative component, to understand at-risk patients' health services use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. Quantitatively, we used electronic medical records data from 272 GPs and 266,796 patients. Based on pre-pandemic data, we predicted weekly consultation counts as well as weekly measurement counts (blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) per 100 patients that would be expected in 2020 in absence of a pandemic and compared those to actual observed values. Qualitatively, we conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with 24 GPs (∼45 min) and 37 interviews with at-risk patients (∼35 min). Quantitative results demonstrate a significant decrease in consultation and measurement counts during the first shutdown period, with consultation counts quickly returning to normal and moving within expected values for the rest of 2020. Qualitative data contextualize these findings with GPs describing constantly implementing material, administrative, and communication changes. GPs reported communication gaps with the authorities and noted a lack of clear guidelines delineating how to define "at-risk patients" and what cases were "urgent" to treat during shutdowns. Patient interviews show that patient-level factors, such as fear of contracting coronavirus, perceptions that GPs were overburdened, and a sense of solidarity, influenced patients' decisions to consult less at the beginning of the pandemic. Findings demonstrate communication gaps during pandemic periods and provide valuable lessons for future pandemic preparedness, particularly the need for contingency plans for the overall healthcare system instead of plans focusing only on the infectious agent itself.

Healthcare professional and professional stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine mandates in Switzerland: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates. METHODS: A national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members. RESULTS: 1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend < 0.001). Physicians (p < .001) and pharmacists (p < .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement. CONCLUSION: In Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Intensity of Health Services Use in General Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: We aimed to explore the impact of the Swiss shutdown in spring 2020 on the intensity of health services use in general practice. Methods: Based on an electronic medical records database, we built one patient cohort each for January-June 2019 (control, 173,523 patients) and 2020 (179,086 patients). We used linear regression to model weekly consultation counts and blood pressure (BP) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement counts per 100 patients and predicted non-shutdown values. Analyses were repeated for selected at-risk groups and different age groups. Results: During the shutdown, weekly consultation counts were lower than predicted by -17.2% (total population), -16.5% (patients with hypertension), -17.5% (diabetes), -17.6% (cardiovascular disease), -15.7% (patients aged <60 years), -20.4% (60-80 years), and -14.5% (>80 years). Weekly BP counts were reduced by -35.3% (total population) and -35.0% (hypertension), and HbA1c counts by -33.2% (total population) and -29.8% (diabetes). p-values <0.001 for all reported estimates. Conclusion: Our results document consequential decreases in consultation counts and chronic disease monitoring during the shutdown. It is crucial that health systems remain able to meet non-COVID-19-related health care needs.