COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and safety among adult people with epilepsy in eastern China.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the hesitancy and safety of vaccination administration for the novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) among adult people with epilepsy (PWE). METHODS: We recruited adult PWE who visited the outpatient epilepsy clinic from August 2021 to February 2022. We administered a structured questionnaire and a face-to-face interview regarding demographic factors, epilepsy characteristics, and relevant vaccine issues to all patients. Factors related to receiving a vaccine and epilepsy-related events after vaccination were then analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 501 PWE were surveyed; 288 were unvaccinated and 213 were vaccinated. Patients without jobs (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.37-0.95, p = 0.03) were less likely to receive the vaccine compared to students or those with jobs. Other factors associated with vaccination were a higher number of anti-seizure medications (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.95, p = 0.02) and a lower pre-vaccine seizure frequency (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.06-4.59, p = 0.03). Of the 213 vaccinated patients, 10 (4.70%) reported at least one local and/or systemic side effect. Most patients (92.50%) did not report worse seizures within one month of vaccination. Poor ASM adherence (OR: 15.06; 95% CI: 1.75-129.87, p = 0.01) and fatigue/stimulant drinks such as caffeine (OR: 50.59; 95% CI: 7.57-337.94, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with seizure worsening within one month of receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: Almost two-fifths of patients with adult PWE have received a COVID-19 vaccine. Attention should be paid to educating epilepsy patients without jobs on the significance and safety of the vaccine. There was a low risk of seizure worsening in the short term after vaccination in PWE.

Evaluation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality during the pandemic of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important technique of first aid. It is necessary to be popularized. Large-scale offline training has been affected after the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Online training will be the future trend, but the quality of online assessment is unclear. This study aims to compare online and offline evaluations of CPR quality using digital simulator and specialist scoring methods. METHODS: Forty-eight out of 108 contestants who participated in the second Chinese National CPR Skill Competition held in 2020 were included in this study. The competition comprised two stages. In the preliminary online competition, the contestants practiced on the digital simulator while the specialist teams scored live videos. The final competition was held offline, and consisted of live simulator scoring and specialist scoring. The grades of the simulator and specialists in different stages were compared. RESULTS: There was no statistical significance for simulator grades between online and offline competition(37.7 ± 2.0 vs. 36.4 ± 3.4, p = 0.169). For specialists' grades, the video scores were lower than live scores (55.0 ± 1.4 vs. 57.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Simulator scoring provided better reliability than specialist scoring in the online evaluation of CPR quality. However, the simulator could only collect quantified data. Specialist scoring is necessary in conjunction with online tests to provide a comprehensive evaluation. A complete and standardized CPR quality evaluation system can be established by combining simulator and specialist contributions.