Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers and the effect of nudging interventions: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has a critical role because of their high-risk exposure and being a role model. Therefore, we aimed to investigate vaccine hesitancy and the role of mandatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and education for vaccine uptake. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory sequential designed observational mixed-methods study, including quantitative and qualitative sections consecutively in two different pandemic hospitals between 15 September 2021 and 1 April 2022. The characteristics of vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs were compared. The vaccine hesitancy scales were applied, and the effect of nudging, such as mandatory PCR and education, were evaluated. In-depth interviews were performed to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs according to Health Belief Model. RESULTS: In total, 3940 HCWs were included. Vaccine hesitancy was more common among males than females, the ancillary workers than other health professions, and nonmedical departments than other departments. After the mandatory weekly PCR request nudge, 83.33 % (130/156) vaccine-hesitant HCWs were vaccinated, and 8.3 % (13/156) after the small group seminars and mandatory PCR every two days. The rate of COVID-19 vaccination was raised from 95.5 % to 99.67  % (3927/3940). At the end of in-depth interviews (n = 13), the vaccine hesitancy determinants were distrust, fear of uncertainty, immune confidence and spirituality, the media effect, social pressure, and obstinacy. CONCLUSIONS: The nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of COVID-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.

COVID-19 Severity among Healthcare Workers: Overweight Male Physicians at Risk.

We performed a prospective longitudinal cohort study in two healthcare settings. In total, 909 HCWs out of 3982 (23.35%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 before the vaccination era. Eighty-five per cent of COVID-19 positive HCWs (n = 774) were asymptomatic or mild, and 15% were moderate or severe. The mean age of the infected HCWs in the moderate or severe group was higher than the mild or asymptomatic group (35.4 vs. 31.3 years, p < 0.001). Thirty-two per cent of HCWs were male and the rate of male gender was more frequent in the moderate/severe group (p = 0.009). The rate of those who have cardiovascular diseases (p = 0.003) and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.044) were significantly higher among the HCWs with moderate or severe COVID-19. In multivariate analysis, male gender (OR:1.65, CI:1.11-2.46, p = 0.013), BMI > 30 (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.09-3.51, p = 0.024), and being physician (OR: 2.56, CI:1.45-4.52, p = 0.001) were found to be associated with moderate or severe COVID-19.

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among health care workers before the era of vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers (HCWs) provides information about the spread of COVID-19 within health care facilities, and the risk groups. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and its determinants among HCWs. DATA SOURCES: We used Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost and Cochrane Library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included the reports of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence with a sample size of minimum 1000 HCWs. METHODS: The study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, no. CRD42021230456). We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The keywords were "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Coronavirus", "seroprevalence", "health care workers" and "risk factors". RESULTS: In total 4329 reports were retrieved, duplications were removed; after filtering according to the title and abstract, 25 studies were selected. Risk of bias was assessed in 25 studies; it was low in 13 studies, medium in four studies, and high in eight studies. In meta-analysis using the random effect model, the weighted average of seroprevalence was calculated as 8% (95% CI 6-10%). The pooled seroprevalence rates of the selected variables that have a rate above the average were male HCWs with 9% (95% CI 7-11%); HCWs from ethnic minorities with 13% (95% CI 9-17%); high exposure 9% (95% CI 6-13%); exposure to the virus outside the health care setting 22% (95% CI 14-32%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate of 8% among studies that included >1000 HCWs for the year 2020, before vaccinations started. The most common risk factors associated with higher seroprevalence rate were ethnicity, male gender and having a higher number of household contacts. Working as a frontline HCW was inconsistent in its association with higher seroprevalence.