Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 461
Filter
1.
JAMA ; 328(15): 1523-1533, 2022 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2074838

ABSTRACT

Importance: Data on the epidemiology of mild to moderately severe COVID-19 are needed to inform public health guidance. Objective: To evaluate associations between 2 or 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and attenuation of symptoms and viral RNA load across SARS-CoV-2 viral lineages. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study of essential and frontline workers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with COVID-19 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing and lineage classified by whole genome sequencing of specimens self-collected weekly and at COVID-19 illness symptom onset. This analysis was conducted among 1199 participants with SARS-CoV-2 from December 14, 2020, to April 19, 2022, with follow-up until May 9, 2022, reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 lineage (origin strain, Delta variant, Omicron variant) and COVID-19 vaccination status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes included presence of symptoms, specific symptoms (including fever or chills), illness duration, and medical care seeking. Virologic outcomes included viral load by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing along with viral viability. Results: Among 1199 participants with COVID-19 infection (714 [59.5%] women; median age, 41 years), 14.0% were infected with the origin strain, 24.0% with the Delta variant, and 62.0% with the Omicron variant. Participants vaccinated with the second vaccine dose 14 to 149 days before Delta infection were significantly less likely to be symptomatic compared with unvaccinated participants (21/27 [77.8%] vs 74/77 [96.1%]; OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0-0.6]) and, when symptomatic, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (5/13 [38.5%] vs 62/73 [84.9%]; OR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3]) and reported significantly fewer days of symptoms (10.2 vs 16.4; difference, -6.1 [95% CI, -11.8 to -0.4] days). Among those with Omicron infection, the risk of symptomatic infection did not differ significantly for the 2-dose vaccination status vs unvaccinated status and was significantly higher for the 3-dose recipients vs those who were unvaccinated (327/370 [88.4%] vs 85/107 [79.4%]; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]). Among symptomatic Omicron infections, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection compared with those who were unvaccinated were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (160/311 [51.5%] vs 64/81 [79.0%]; OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.1-0.5]) or seek medical care (45/308 [14.6%] vs 20/81 [24.7%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). Participants with Delta and Omicron infections who received the second dose 14 to 149 days before infection had a significantly lower mean viral load compared with unvaccinated participants (3 vs 4.1 log10 copies/µL; difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.2] for Delta and 2.8 vs 3.5 log10 copies/µL, difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3] for Omicron). Conclusions and Relevance: In a cohort of US essential and frontline workers with SARS-CoV-2 infections, recent vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses less than 150 days before infection with Delta or Omicron variants, compared with being unvaccinated, was associated with attenuated symptoms, duration of illness, medical care seeking, or viral load for some comparisons, although the precision and statistical significance of specific estimates varied.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccination , Viral Load , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA-Directed DNA Polymerase , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Viral Load/drug effects , Viral Load/genetics , Viral Load/statistics & numerical data , Whole Genome Sequencing , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Asymptomatic Infections/therapy , Time Factors , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data
2.
3.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines for COVID-19 have had a significant impact on the spread of COVID-19 infection, reducing the incidence and mortality of the infection in several countries. However, hesitancy toward this vaccine is a global health issue for the general population The Vaccine acceptance rate among patients affected with inherited metabolic disorders (IMD), as well as safety profile, has not been described. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study, based on a telephone survey, investigating the COVID-19 vaccination rate, the incidence and type of adverse effects (AEs), the reasons for vaccine refusal and the effects on the underlying disease in a cohort of IMD patients followed at a single center and invited directly to vaccination by specialistic team. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included in the study, the median age was 23.4 years (min 12.1-max 61.7), 47% (n = 85) were females and 61% (107) were affected from impaired metabolism of phenylalanine. By October 2021, 94% (n = 163) of them had received at least one dose of the vaccine, which was, in 98% of cases, mRNA-based vaccine, given at the referral hospital in 65% of cases. Overall, 72% of patients with IMD reported AE to the vaccine: 60% after the first dose, 81% after the second. The highest rate of adverse events at the first dose was reported in patients with amino acids related disorders other than impaired phenylalanine metabolism (PKU/HPA) (88%). For the second dose, the PKU/HPA group reported the highest rate of AEs (89% of cases). There was no effect on the underlying disease or acute decompensation after the vaccine. Eleven patients (6%) were not vaccinated because they considered it dangerous. CONCLUSION: Among individuals with IMD, the vaccination rate was high, the incidence and severity of AEs were comparable to those in the general population with no effects on the disease. Direct contact with the specialist medical team, has proven to reassure patients and effectively contrast hesitancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Metabolic Diseases , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Young Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cross-Sectional Studies , Metabolic Diseases/complications , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Child , Adolescent , Middle Aged , Vaccination Refusal/statistics & numerical data
6.
West J Emerg Med ; 23(4): 570-578, 2022 Jul 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1975260

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Unvaccinated emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are at increased risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and potentially transmitting the virus to their families, coworkers, and patients. Effective vaccines for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus exist; however, vaccination rates among EMS professionals remain largely unknown. Consequently, we sought to document vaccination rates of EMS professionals and identify predictors of vaccination uptake. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS professionals after the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available. The survey assessed vaccination status as well as beliefs regarding COVID-19 illness and vaccine effectiveness. Prediction of vaccine uptake was modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 860 EMS professionals completed the survey, of whom 74.7% reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Most respondents believed that COVID-19 is a serious threat to the population, that they are personally at higher risk of infection, that vaccine side effects are outweighed by illness prevention, and the vaccine is safe and effective. Despite this, only 18.7% supported mandatory vaccination for EMS professionals. Statistically significant differences were observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, recall of employer vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of infection, degree of threat to the population, and trust in government to take actions to limit the spread of disease. Unvaccinated respondents cited reasons such as belief in personal health and natural immunity as protectors against infection, concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, inadequate vaccine knowledge, and lack of an employer mandate for declining the vaccine. Predictors of vaccination included belief in vaccine safety (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, P=<0.001) and effectiveness (OR 4.6, P=<0.001); importance of vaccination to protect patients (OR 15.5, P=<0.001); perceived personal risk of infection (OR 1.8, P=0.04); previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 2.5, P=0.003); and sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision about vaccination (OR 2.4, P=0.024). CONCLUSION: In this survey of EMS professionals, over a quarter remained unvaccinated for COVID-19. Given the identified predictors of vaccine acceptance, EMS systems should focus on countering misinformation through employee educational campaigns as well as on developing policies regarding workforce immunization requirements.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Health Personnel , Vaccination , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Making , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Health Surveys , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , North Carolina , Occupational Health , Patient Safety , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
8.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264994, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938426

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 severely impacted world health and, as a consequence of the measures implemented to stop the spread of the virus, also irreversibly damaged the world economy. Research shows that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is the most successful measure to combat the virus and could also address its indirect consequences. However, vaccine hesitancy is growing worldwide and the WHO names this hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health. This study investigates the trend in positive attitudes towards vaccines across ten countries since a positive attitude is important. Furthermore, we investigate those variables related to having a positive attitude, as these factors could potentially increase the uptake of vaccines. We derive our text corpus from vaccine-related tweets, harvested in real-time from Twitter. Using Natural Language Processing (NLP), we derive the sentiment and emotions contained in the tweets to construct daily time-series data. We analyse a panel dataset spanning both the Northern and Southern hemispheres from 1 February 2021 to 31 July 2021. To determine the relationship between several variables and the positive sentiment (attitude) towards vaccines, we run various models, including POLS, Panel Fixed Effects and Instrumental Variables estimations. Our results show that more information about vaccines' safety and the expected side effects are needed to increase positive attitudes towards vaccines. Additionally, government procurement and the vaccine rollout should improve. Accessibility to the vaccine should be a priority, and a collective effort should be made to increase positive messaging about the vaccine, especially on social media. The results of this study contribute to the understanding of the emotional challenges associated with vaccine uptake and inform policymakers, health workers, and stakeholders who communicate to the public during infectious disease outbreaks. Additionally, the global fight against COVID-19 might be lost if the attitude towards vaccines is not improved.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Vaccination/psychology , Attitude , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , Emotions , Global Health , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Natural Language Processing , Optimism , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Social Media , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/trends , /trends , Vaccines
9.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(5): 2090179, 2022 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1927243

ABSTRACT

The current letter provides the backdrop context of the study "Intention to vaccinate young children against COVID-19: a large-scale survey of Hong Kong parents" conducted when the COVID-19 vaccination was first made available to young children in Hong Kong during the fifth wave of the outbreak. The study was conducted to examine parents' intention for informing the development of an effective child COVID-19 vaccine program because parents were speculated to have low intention to vaccinate their children against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intention , Child , Humans , Child, Preschool , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Parents , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
10.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(8): 1731-1734, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924009

ABSTRACT

We studied the effect of booster vaccinations on reducing household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1529 (Omicron) variant in a February 2022 sampling of contacts in South Korea. The secondary attack rate was lower for vaccinated versus unvaccinated contacts, and booster vaccination resulted in a lower incidence rate ratio.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunization, Secondary , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Humans , Immunization, Secondary/statistics & numerical data , Incidence , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
11.
Nature ; 606(7914): 542-549, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1921631

ABSTRACT

The reluctance of people to get vaccinated represents a fundamental challenge to containing the spread of deadly infectious diseases1,2, including COVID-19. Identifying misperceptions that can fuel vaccine hesitancy and creating effective communication strategies to overcome them are a global public health priority3-5. Medical doctors are a trusted source of advice about vaccinations6, but media reports may create an inaccurate impression that vaccine controversy is prevalent among doctors, even when a broad consensus exists7,8. Here we show that public misperceptions about the views of doctors on the COVID-19 vaccines are widespread, and correcting them increases vaccine uptake. We implement a survey among 9,650 doctors in the Czech Republic and find that 90% of doctors trust the vaccines. Next, we show that 90% of respondents in a nationally representative sample (n = 2,101) underestimate doctors' trust; the most common belief is that only 50% of doctors trust the vaccines. Finally, we integrate randomized provision of information about the true views held by doctors into a longitudinal data collection that regularly monitors vaccination status over 9 months. The treatment recalibrates beliefs and leads to a persistent increase in vaccine uptake. The approach demonstrated in this paper shows how the engagement of professional medical associations, with their unparalleled capacity to elicit individual views of doctors on a large scale, can help to create a cheap, scalable intervention that has lasting positive impacts on health behaviour.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Consensus , Health Education , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Physicians , Vaccination , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Czech Republic , Health Behavior , Humans , Public Health , Public Opinion , Societies, Medical , Surveys and Questionnaires , Trust , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical data
13.
Int J Rheum Dis ; 25(9): 1046-1052, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1916017

ABSTRACT

AIM: This survey was conducted to evaluate COVID-19 vaccination status in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). Our objectives were to study vaccine hesitancy, adverse effects, breakthrough infections and flare of underlying disease in this population subgroup. METHODS: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional, interview-based survey done at 6 tertiary care centers across Tamil Nadu, in the southern part of India from September 15, 2021 to October 14, 2021. The survey questionnaire was filled up by AIRD patients attending their clinics. The survey questionnaire comprised a set of 14 questions, distributed between patient characteristics, vaccines taken, their characteristics and COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There were 2092 participants, with a mean age of 47.5 ± 13.17 years. Among them, 1293 (61.81%) were vaccinated, of which 837 (64.73%) were fully vaccinated. Two-thirds of our subjects were vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (COVISHIELD) (77.64%) and 21.57% with BBV 152 (COVAXIN). Age, gender, education and comorbidities had no association with vaccine hesitancy. The commonest (421; 52.69%) reason for vaccine hesitancy was fear of side effects. The incidence (n = 72) of breakthrough infections was similar in both the vaccine groups, of which 58 (80.55%) were partially vaccinated and 14 (19.44%) were fully vaccinated. Thirty-two patients had a flare of pre-existing rheumatic disease. CONCLUSION: ChAdOx1 nCov-19 and BBV 152 were found to be safe in patients with rheumatic diseases. Fear of side effects was the major cause of vaccine hesitancy. All adverse effects were minor and self-limiting. Breakthrough infections and disease flares occurred only in a small subset of our cohort.


Subject(s)
Autoimmune Diseases , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Autoimmune Diseases/epidemiology , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cross-Sectional Studies , India/epidemiology , Rheumatic Diseases/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy
14.
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 41(10): 841-845, 2022 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1909004

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The data on the indirect protection of children via the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination of household members are insufficient, and analyses to evaluate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are limited. METHODS: We gathered data on 12,442 patients under the age of 18 regarding the vaccination status of their household members, their vaccine preferences and doses, and their previous history of COVID-19 infection immediately before the patients were administered a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between September 1, 2021 and December 5, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 18.4% (2289) were vaccinated, 91.4% with BNT162b2mRNA vaccine, 8.6% with inactivated COVID-19 vaccine; 48.7% received a single dose, and 51.3% had 2 doses. Real-time RT-PCR positivity proportions were much higher in older children ( P < 0.001) and were higher in children 12 years of age and older [odds ratio (OR), 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-1.47] compared with others. SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in the vaccinated group (fully and incompletely) ( P < 0.001). Unvaccinated (OR, 4.88; 95% CI: 3.77-6.13) and incompletely vaccinated children (OR, 1.83; 95% CI: 1.52-2.12) had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared with fully vaccinated patients No significant association was found between the COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR positivity rates of patients and the vaccination status or vaccine preferences of household members ( P > 0.05 each). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were significantly lower in vaccinated children, especially with mRNA vaccines. The indirect protection of unvaccinated children via the vaccination of household members against COVID-19 seems inadequate. The individual vaccination of children remains crucial.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Parents , Vaccination , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Child , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
15.
Front Immunol ; 13: 812606, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902974

ABSTRACT

Background: B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants of concern for SARS-CoV-2 have been reported to have differential infectivity and pathogenicity. Difference in recovery patterns across these variants and the interaction with vaccination status has not been reported in population-based studies. Objective: The objective of this research was to study the length of stay and temporal trends in RT-PCR cycle times (Ct) across alpha and delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Methods: Participants consisted of patients admitted to national COVID-19 treatment facilities if they had a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, and analysis of variants was performed (using whole genome sequencing). Information on vaccination status, age, sex, cycle times (Ct) for four consecutive RT-PCR tests conducted during hospital stay, and total length of hospital stay for each participant were ascertained from electronic medical records. Results: Patients infected with the delta variant were younger (mean age = 35years vs 39 years for alpha, p<0.001) and had lesser vaccination coverage (54% vs 72% for alpha, p<0.001). RT-PCR Ct values were similar for both variants at the baseline test; however by the fourth test, delta variant patients had significantly lower Ct values (27 vs 29, p=0.05). Length of hospital stay was higher in delta variant patients in vaccinated (3 days vs 2.9 days for alpha variant) as well as in unvaccinated patients (5.2 days vs 4.4 days for alpha variant, p<0.001). Hazards of hospital discharge after adjusting for vaccination status, age, and sex was higher for alpha variant infections (HR=1.2, 95% CI: 1.01-1.41, p=0.029). Conclusion: Patients infected with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 were found to have a slower recovery as indicated by longer length of stay and higher shedding of the virus compared to alpha variant infections, and this trend was consistent in both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adult , Age Factors , Bahrain/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
16.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(8): 1699-1702, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902888

ABSTRACT

We investigated the serial interval for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and Delta variants and observed a shorter serial interval for Omicron, suggesting faster transmission. Results indicate a relationship between empirical serial interval and vaccination status for both variants. Further assessment of the causes and extent of Omicron dominance over Delta is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Belgium/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
17.
N Engl J Med ; 387(2): 109-119, 2022 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1900734

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infants younger than 6 months of age are at high risk for complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and are not eligible for vaccination. Transplacental transfer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after maternal Covid-19 vaccination may confer protection against Covid-19 in infants. METHODS: We used a case-control test-negative design to assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination during pregnancy against hospitalization for Covid-19 among infants younger than 6 months of age. Between July 1, 2021, and March 8, 2022, we enrolled infants hospitalized for Covid-19 (case infants) and infants hospitalized without Covid-19 (control infants) at 30 hospitals in 22 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of full maternal vaccination (two doses of mRNA vaccine) among case infants and control infants during circulation of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant (July 1, 2021, to December 18, 2021) and the B.1.1.259 (omicron) variant (December 19, 2021, to March 8, 2022). RESULTS: A total of 537 case infants (181 of whom had been admitted to a hospital during the delta period and 356 during the omicron period; median age, 2 months) and 512 control infants were enrolled and included in the analyses; 16% of the case infants and 29% of the control infants had been born to mothers who had been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 during pregnancy. Among the case infants, 113 (21%) received intensive care (64 [12%] received mechanical ventilation or vasoactive infusions). Two case infants died from Covid-19; neither infant's mother had been vaccinated during pregnancy. The effectiveness of maternal vaccination against hospitalization for Covid-19 among infants was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33 to 65) overall, 80% (95% CI, 60 to 90) during the delta period, and 38% (95% CI, 8 to 58) during the omicron period. Effectiveness was 69% (95% CI, 50 to 80) when maternal vaccination occurred after 20 weeks of pregnancy and 38% (95% CI, 3 to 60) during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for Covid-19, including for critical illness, among infants younger than 6 months of age. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , mRNA Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Mothers , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines/adverse effects , mRNA Vaccines/therapeutic use
18.
Vaccine ; 40(31): 4262-4269, 2022 07 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1900246

ABSTRACT

Encouraging vaccine uptake is important to reducing the impact of infectious disease. However, negative attitudes and vaccine hesitancy, due in part to worry about side effects, are obstacles to achieving high vaccination rates. Provided vaccine information sheets typically include a list of side effects without numeric information about their likelihoods, but providing such numbers may yield benefits. We investigated the effect of providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood (e.g., "1%") and verbal labels (e.g., "uncommon") on intentions to get a hypothetical vaccine, reasons for the vaccination decision, and risk overestimation. In a diverse, online, convenience sample (N = 595), providing numeric information increased vaccine intentions-70% of those who received numeric information were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to vaccinate compared to only 54% of those who did not receive numeric information (p<.001), controlling for age, gender, race, education, and political ideology. Participants receiving numeric information also were less likely to overestimate side-effect likelihood. Verbal labels had additional benefits when included with numeric information, particularly among the vaccine hesitant. For these participants, verbal labels increased vaccine intentions when included with numeric information (but not in its absence). Among the vaccine-hesitant, 43% of those provided numeric information and verbal labels were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to get vaccinated vs. only 24% of those given a list of side effects (p<.001). We conclude that the standard practice of not providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood leads to a less-informed public who is less likely to vaccinate.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccines , Humans , Intention , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines/administration & dosage , Vaccines/adverse effects
19.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265061, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896451

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Even though people of the world were eagerly waiting for the hope of vaccine development, vaccine hesitancy is becoming the top concern in both developed and developing countries. However, there is no adequate evidence regarding the attitude and perception of health professionals towards the COVID 19 vaccine in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. The aim of this study was to assess health professionals' attitudes and perceptions towards COVID 19 vaccine in Western Ethiopia. METHODS: An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted among health care workers found in Nekemte town from April 14-21, 2021. A total of 439 health professionals present on duty during the study period was included in the study. The data were collected by using self-administered questionnaire. Epidata version 3.2 was used for data entry, and STATA version 14 was used for data analysis. The binary logistic regression model was employed to determine factors associated with the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals was computed and statistical significance was declared at a 5% level (p-value < 0.05). RESULT: A total of 431 health professionals participated in the study yielding a response rate of 98.1%. The results indicated that 51.28% (95%CI: 45.12%, 57.34%) of health professionals had a favorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. Having good knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.22, 0.64, P-value <0.001) was negatively associated with unfavorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine, whereas age less than 30 years (AOR = 2.14, 95%CI:1.25,3.67, P-value <0.001), working in a private clinic (AOR = 7.77, 95% CI: 2.19, 27.58, P-value <0.001) and health center (AOR = 2.45, 95%CI: 1.01, 5.92, P-value = 0.045) were positively associated with unfavorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: In general, the attitude and perception of health care professionals toward the COVID-19 vaccine in the study area were unsatisfactory. Knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, age of health care workers, and place of work are the factors which affects attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, we recommend the media outlets and concerned bodies to work to develop trust among the public by disseminating accurate and consistent information about the vaccine.


Subject(s)
Attitude , Health Personnel/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Community Health Centers , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia , Female , Humans , Knowledge , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Private Facilities , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/psychology
20.
Rural Remote Health ; 21(4): 7043, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1893591

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated communities throughout the world and has required rapid paradigm changes in the manner in which health care is administered. Previous health models and practices have been modified and changed at a rapid pace. This commentary provides the experiences of a regional Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation in a COVID-19 vaccination program led and managed by Aboriginal Health Practitioners.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , Community Health Services , Health Services, Indigenous , Physician's Role , Vaccination , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Community Health Services/organization & administration , Health Services, Indigenous/organization & administration , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Victoria/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL