COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in N'Djamena, Chad: A cross-sectional study of patients, community members, and healthcare workers

As of March 2022, the COVID-19 vaccination rate in Chad approximated 1%. There are no published reports of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or beliefs in Chad. We aimed to study COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among community members, patients, and health care workers in urban Chad. We recruited a prospective convenience sample of adult patients, community members, and healthcare workers from N'Djamena, Chad between August–October 2021. Participants completed a 15-minute, 25-question survey instrument exploring demographic, social, and clinical variables related to COVID-19 and an adapted WHO SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Survey. Primary outcomes were vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy. Regression models were fit to assess associations between Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) scores, ranging from 10 (least hesitant) to 50 (most hesitant) points, and pre-selected variables of interest. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative vaccine hesitancy responses. Of 508 participants (32% female;mean age 32 years), 162 were patients, 153 were community members, and 193 were healthcare workers. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was significantly higher among patients (67%) than community members (44%) or healthcare workers (47%), p < .001. The average VHS score was 29 points (patients = 27.0, community members = 28.9, healthcare workers = 29.4), and more than one-third of participants were classified as highly vaccine hesitant (score >30 points). Knowing someone who died from COVID-19, believing local healthcare workers support vaccination, trusting the government, having a higher socioeconomic status (i.e. having electricity), and reporting medical comorbidities were each associated with less vaccine hesitancy (all p < .05). The vaccine concerns most frequently endorsed were: vaccine side effects (48%), efficacy (38%), safety (34%), concerns about the pharmaceutical industry (27%), and lack of government trust (21%). Four main themes arose from qualitative vaccine hesitancy responses (n = 116): education, trust, clinical concerns, and misinformation and false beliefs. Overall, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was low, including among health care workers, and reasons for vaccine hesitancy were broad. We detail the most commonly reported concerns of urban Chadians for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine;we also identify subgroups most likely to endorse vaccine hesitancy. These analyses may inform future vaccination outreach campaigns in N'Djamena.

Social determinants of health in multiple sclerosis.

Social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes. Evidence indicates that health behaviours, comorbidities and disease-modifying therapies all contribute to multiple sclerosis (MS) outcomes; however, our knowledge of the effects of social determinants - that is, the 'risks of risks' - on health has not yet changed our approach to MS. Assessing and addressing social determinants of health could fundamentally improve health and health care in MS; this approach has already been successful in improving outcomes in other chronic diseases. In this narrative Review, we identify and discuss the body of evidence supporting an effect of many social determinants of health, including racial background, employment and social support, on MS outcomes. It must be noted that many of the published studies were subject to bias, and screening tools and/or practical interventions that address these social determinants are, for the most part, lacking. The existing work does not fully explore the potential bidirectional and complex relationships between social determinants of health and MS, and the interpretation of findings is complicated by the interactions and intersections among many of the identified determinants. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we consider that, if effective interventions targeting social determinants of health were available, they could have substantial effects on MS outcomes. Therefore, funding for and focused design of studies to evaluate and address social determinants of health are urgently needed.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in N'Djamena, Chad: A cross-sectional study of patients, community members, and healthcare workers.

As of March 2022, the COVID-19 vaccination rate in Chad approximated 1%. There are no published reports of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or beliefs in Chad. We aimed to study COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among community members, patients, and health care workers in urban Chad. We recruited a prospective convenience sample of adult patients, community members, and healthcare workers from N'Djamena, Chad between August-October 2021. Participants completed a 15-minute, 25-question survey instrument exploring demographic, social, and clinical variables related to COVID-19 and an adapted WHO SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Survey. Primary outcomes were vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy. Regression models were fit to assess associations between Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) scores, ranging from 10 (least hesitant) to 50 (most hesitant) points, and pre-selected variables of interest. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative vaccine hesitancy responses. Of 508 participants (32% female; mean age 32 years), 162 were patients, 153 were community members, and 193 were healthcare workers. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was significantly higher among patients (67%) than community members (44%) or healthcare workers (47%), p < .001. The average VHS score was 29 points (patients = 27.0, community members = 28.9, healthcare workers = 29.4), and more than one-third of participants were classified as highly vaccine hesitant (score >30 points). Knowing someone who died from COVID-19, believing local healthcare workers support vaccination, trusting the government, having a higher socioeconomic status (i.e. having electricity), and reporting medical comorbidities were each associated with less vaccine hesitancy (all p < .05). The vaccine concerns most frequently endorsed were: vaccine side effects (48%), efficacy (38%), safety (34%), concerns about the pharmaceutical industry (27%), and lack of government trust (21%). Four main themes arose from qualitative vaccine hesitancy responses (n = 116): education, trust, clinical concerns, and misinformation and false beliefs. Overall, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was low, including among health care workers, and reasons for vaccine hesitancy were broad. We detail the most commonly reported concerns of urban Chadians for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine; we also identify subgroups most likely to endorse vaccine hesitancy. These analyses may inform future vaccination outreach campaigns in N'Djamena.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of active COVID-19 in multiple sclerosis: An observational study.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) received emergency use authorization for the acute treatment of COVID-19. We are not aware of published data on their use in immunosuppressed people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). We report 23 pwMS (mean age = 49 years, ocrelizumab (n = 19), fingolimod (n = 2), vaccinated with at least an initial series (n = 19)) who received mAb for acute COVID-19. Following mAb receipt, approximately half recovered in <7 days (48%). There were no adverse events or deaths. Use of mAb for pwMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab was not observed to be harmful and is likely helpful for treatment of acute COVID-19.

A Mixed-Methods and Prospective Approach to Understanding Coping Behaviors, Depression, Hopelessness, and Acute Stress in a U.S. Convenience Sample During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increases in U.S. residents' stressors while limiting many of the resources previously available to cope with stress. Coping behaviors may contribute to the prevention or proliferation of psychological distress during and after the pandemic. Understanding these coping behaviors and associated psychological outcomes can help health educators develop programs that encourage effective coping and promote mental health. This study used a sequential mixed-methods approach informed by Roth and Cohen's conceptualization of coping to understand the use of approach coping behaviors- which are active and directed toward the perceived threat-and avoidance coping behaviors-which include activity directed away from perceived threat during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. residents (N = 2,987) were surveyed online in April 2020 and again in September 2021. Open-ended responses at baseline were thematically analyzed to illustrate coping behaviors in participants' own words. At baseline, more than half (56%) of the sample met criteria for probable depression, 51% for acute stress symptoms, and 42% for moderate to severe hopelessness. At follow-up, 45% meet criteria for probable depression and 23% for acute stress. However, the proportion of the sample who reported moderate to severe hopelessness increased to 48%. We used mixed-effects general linear models to examine changes over time and found that increases in approach coping behaviors were associated with decreases in depressive symptoms and hopelessness; increases in avoidance coping were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and higher levels of hopelessness. Increases in both types of coping were associated with increases in acute stress symptoms related to COVID-19. Although there was some attenuation in distress in our sample between April 2020 and September 2021, our findings suggest a need for interventions that encourage the use of approach coping behaviors and that both increase access to and decrease stigma for mental health support.

Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with depression, anxiety, and general mental health in people with multiple sclerosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background People with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) may be at increased risk for psychological distress during COVID-19. We study the self-reported mental health of U.S. PwMS during COVID-19, prior to vaccine rollout. Methods A cross-sectional survey was distributed online to PwMS through iConquerMS (12/18/2020-02/10/2021). Depressive and anxiety symptom burdens and general mental health status were measured via the Patient-Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and PROMIS Global Mental Health scales. Linear regression models assessed associations between mental health variables and age, sex, disability status, comorbidities, and social determinants of health. Results Of 610 U.S. PwMS (mean age 56 years, standard deviation 11, range 20-85; female, 81%; relapsing remitting disease, 62%; previous depression diagnosis, 40%), the prevalences of moderate-to-severe depressive and anxiety symptom burden were 27.4% and 14.7%, respectively; 55.1% endorsed fair/poor general mental health. PwMS who tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 47, 7.7%) reported higher depressive and anxiety symptom burdens (p < 0.05). Increased disability status score and social determinants of health were each associated with more depressive symptoms and worse general mental health. Younger age was associated with increased depressive and anxiety symptom burdens and worse general mental health. Female sex was associated with greater anxiety symptoms. Conclusion There are specific associations for worse mental health among PwMS during COVID-19 that reflect a combination of clinical, demographic, and social determinants of health. Multidisciplinary care teams and vigilance are important to address the ongoing mental health impacts of COVID-19 in PwMS.

Characterizing Health Care Delays and Interruptions in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Internet-Based, Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has broader geographic spread and potentially longer lasting effects than those of previous disasters. Necessary preventive precautions for the transmission of COVID-19 has resulted in delays for in-person health care services, especially at the outset of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Among a US sample, we examined the rates of delays (defined as cancellations and postponements) in health care at the outset of the pandemic and characterized the reasons for such delays. METHODS: As part of an internet-based survey that was distributed on social media in April 2020, we asked a US-based convenience sample of 2570 participants about delays in their health care resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Participant demographics and self-reported worries about general health and the COVID-19 pandemic were explored as potent determinants of health care delays. In addition to all delays, we focused on the following three main types of delays, which were the primary outcomes in this study: dental, preventive, and diagnostic care delays. For each outcome, we used bivariate statistical tests (t tests and chi-square tests) and multiple logistic regression models to determine which factors were associated with health care delays. RESULTS: The top reported barrier to receiving health care was the fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection (126/374, 33.6%). Almost half (1227/2570, 47.7%) of the participants reported experiencing health care delays. Among those who experienced health care delays and further clarified the type of delay they experienced (921/1227, 75.1%), the top three reported types of care that were affected by delays included dental (351/921, 38.1%), preventive (269/921, 29.2%), and diagnostic (151/921, 16.4%) care. The logistic regression models showed that age (P<.001), gender identity (P<.001), education (P=.007), and self-reported worry about general health (P<.001) were significantly associated with experiencing health care delays. Self-reported worry about general health was negatively related to experiencing delays in dental care. However, this predictor was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing based on the logistic regression model. Additionally, age was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing. No factors remained significant in the multiple logistic regression for delays in preventive care, and although there was trend between race and delays (people of color experienced fewer delays than White participants), it was not significant (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: The lessons learned from the initial surge of COVID-19 cases can inform systemic mitigation strategies for potential future disruptions. This study addresses the demand side of health care delays by exploring the determinants of such delays. More research on health care delays during the pandemic is needed, including research on their short- and long-term impacts on patient-level outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, mental health, people's quality of life, and the experience of pain.

Addressing the critical need for long-term mental health data during the COVID-19 pandemic: Changes in mental health from April to September 2020.

Despite the large amounts of research currently being conducted and the high number of editorials warning about the potential mental health impacts, there is a stunning lack of longitudinal mental health data on the effects of the pandemic. Yet, the pandemic may have sizable long-term impacts on psychological distress and health behaviors-these effects may be long-lasting and may disproportionately affect some demographic groups more than others. Data came from a longitudinal international study of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults' psychological distress and wellbeing (N = 1567). We found high rates of depression (55% were diagnosable with probable depression at baseline), anxiety (65%), and risk for PTSD (51%). More than one-third of participants who reported that they drank alcohol indicated that their drinking had increased since the start of the pandemic. Over time, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts and behaviors increased significantly, but acute stress symptoms decreased. Specific demographic groups (people of color and sexual and gender minorities) appeared to be at high risk of distress across analyses. Our findings suggest high rates of depression, anxiety, acute stress, and other signs of distress like isolation, hopelessness, and use of substances to cope-even at five-month follow-up. Our findings suggest a need to prioritize availability of, and access to, mental health care during both the pandemic and the recovery.