Acceptance and barriers of COVID-19 vaccination among people with chronic diseases in Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus Disease 2019 is a life-threatening disease, especially for people suffering from chronic diseases. As the vaccine is considered an essential tool to confront pandemics, many international medical institutions have developed vaccines. Countries around the world started immunizing their citizens. This study aims to assess the acceptance and barriers of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Saudi Arabian people who suffer from chronic diseases. METHODOLOGY: In February-March 2021, a cross-sectional study of Saudi Arabian people who have chronic diseases was undertaken. It was based on an Arabic self-administered online questionnaire and used a convenience sampling technique. 310 people were invited. The response rate was 97%. RESULTS: 51.95% of the participants agreed to take the COVID-19 vaccine, 33.5% were unsure about being vaccinated, and 14.5% refused. The most frequent concerns between participants and receiving the vaccine were about the side effects and the perceived misconception that following preventative measures is enough to protect against the virus. Significant associations between age, education, and occupation with acceptance rate were found (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although a higher acceptance for the targeted group was expected, the participants showed a moderate acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the barriers in the current study regarding vaccine uptake and focusing on building trust in the safety and efficacy of the vaccine will aid in hesitancy and resistance toward the vaccine, specifically if these measures were undertaken by an authority such as the Saudi Ministry of Health.

Therapeutic inertia amongst general practitioners with interest in diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: As the therapeutic options in the management of type 2 diabetes increase, there is an increase confusion among health care professionals, thus leading to the phenomenon of therapeutic inertia. This is the failure to escalate or de-escalate treatment when the clinical need for this is required. It has been studied extensively in various settings, however, it has never been reported in any studies focusing solely on primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes. This group is increasingly becoming the focus of managing complex diabetes care in the community, albeit with the support from specialists. METHODS: In this retrospective audit, we assessed the prevalence of the phenomenon of therapeutic inertia amongst primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes in UK. We also assessed the predictive abilities of various patient level characteristics on therapeutic inertia amongst this group of clinicians. RESULTS: Out of the 240 patients reported on, therapeutic inertia was judged to have occurred in 53 (22.1%) of patients. The full model containing all the selected variables was not statistically significant, p=0.59. So the model was not able to distinguish between situations in which therapeutic inertia occurred and when it did not occur. None of the patient level characteristics on its own was predictive of therapeutic inertia. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic inertia was present only in about a fifth of patient patients with diabetes being managed by primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes.