Sociocultural and moral narratives influencing the decision to vaccinate among rheumatic disease patients: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Vaccination is a process that involves individual, social, and ethical aspects, beyond public governance of vaccines or vaccination as a public health concern. The aim of this study is to describe the sociocultural and moral narratives that influence the decision to vaccinate in general and to vaccinate against COVID-19 specifically, among patients at the rheumatology units of two hospitals. METHODS: Qualitative study involving individual semi-structured interviews following an interview guide. We conducted a thematic analysis using the ATLAS.ti software, with further triangulation to verify concordance and aid in the interpretation of the data from a medical anthropology framework and using a narrative ethics approach to gain insight into the participants' underlying moral values. RESULTS: We interviewed 37 patients in total, along with 3 rheumatologists. Five core themes emerged from the analysis to understand the decision to vaccinate: (1) information about vaccines and disease, (2) perceived risk-benefit of vaccination, (3) the physician-patient relationship, (4) governance of vaccination programs, (5) attitudes towards vaccines. Individual and family experiences with vaccination are diverse depending on the type of vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine, as a new medical technology, is met with more controversy leading to hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to vaccinate among Mexican rheumatic disease patients can sometimes involve doubt and distrust, especially for those with a lupus diagnosis, but ultimately there is acceptance in most cases. Though patients make and value autonomous decisions, there is a collective process involving sociocultural and ethical aspects. Key points • The complexity of vaccine decision-making is better identified through a narrative, qualitative approach like the one used in this study, as opposed to solely quantitative approaches • Sociocultural and moral perspectives of vaccination shape decision-making and, therefore, highlight the importance of including patients in the development of effective clinical practice guidelines as well as ethically justified public policy • Sociohistorical context and personal experiences of immunization influence vaccine decision-making much more than access to biomedical information about vaccines, showing that approaches based on the information deficit model are inadequate to fight vaccine hesitancy.

The COVID-19 epidemic curve and vaccine acceptance among patients with rheumatic diseases: an ecological study.

The attitudes toward emerging COVID-19 vaccines have been of great interest worldwide, especially among vulnerable populations such as patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between the nationwide number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and vaccine acceptance or hesitancy of patients with RMDs from four patient care centers in Mexico. Furthermore, we explored differences in acceptance according to specific diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This ecological study was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study using a validated questionnaire to measure vaccine acceptance. We generated a global Likert scale to evaluate overall attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from 1336 patients from March to September 2021: 85.13% (1169) were women, with a mean age of 47.87 (SD 14.14) years. The most frequent diagnoses were RA (42.85%, 559) and SLE (27.08%, 393). 635(47.52%) patients were unvaccinated, 253(18.93%) had one dose and 478(35.77%) had two doses. Of all participating patients, 94% were accepting toward the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine acceptance remained consistently high throughout the study. However, differences in vaccine acceptance are identified when comparing diagnoses. The peak of the national epidemic curve coincided with an increase in hesitancy among patients with RA. Contrastingly, patients with SLE became more accepting as the epidemic curve peaked. Mexican patients show high acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, influenced in part by a patient's specific diagnosis. Furthermore, vaccine acceptance increased mirroring the curve of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the country. This should be taken into consideration when updating recommendations for clinical practice.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Ethics in Mexico Through a Gender Lens.

In Mexico, significant ethical and social issues have been raised by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the most pressing issues are the extent of restrictive measures, the reciprocal duties to healthcare workers, the allocation of scarce resources, and the need for research. While policy and ethical frameworks are being developed to face these problems, the gender perspective has been largely overlooked in most of the issues at stake. Domestic violence is the most prevalent form of violence against women, which can be exacerbated during a pandemic: stress and economic uncertainty are triggers for abuse, and confinement limits access to support networks. Confinement also exacerbates the unfair distribution of unpaid labor, which is disproportionately assigned to women and girls, and highlights inequality in the overall labor market. Lack of security measures has resulted in attacks towards health workers, particularly female nurses, due to fear of contamination. Finally, resource results in lack of access to other health necessities, including sexual and reproductive health services. Research across all disciplines to face-and to learn from-this crisis should be done through a gender lens, because understanding the realities of women is essential to understand the pandemic's true effects in Mexico and the world.