ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 vaccine rollout in recent months offers a powerful preventive measure that may help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines has heightened public health concerns that vaccine coverage may not achieve desired public health impacts.This cross-sectional survey was conducted online in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18 to 65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Projected COVID-19 vaccine coverage varied and may not be sufficiently high among certain populations to achieve herd immunity. Overall, 56.9% would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. Public health campaigns must tackle these safety concerns. HighlightsO_LIMixed-method survey studied expected COVID vaccine uptake in 7 European countries. C_LIO_LIProjected COVID vaccine acceptance by country ranged from 44% to 66%. C_LIO_LIExplicit COVID vaccine acceptance or rejection was conditional. C_LIO_LIStudy finds concerns about vaccine safety and authorities competence and honesty. C_LIO_LIVaccine communications should address safety anxieties and target specific groups. C_LI
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWith a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found that most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked many at-risk populations, and had variations in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. The aim of this study was to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs in different settings. MethodsA cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide from 15 June to 20 July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs. were analyzed by geographic location. ResultsSeventy-six clinicians, from 27 countries responded, 82% from high-income countries, 17% from low-middle income countries. Most respondents reported access to Covid-19 CMG and confidence in implementation of these. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatments and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women and 50% for older adults (>65 years). Themes emerging were for CMGs to include recommendations for different at-risk populations, and settings, include supportive care guidance, be readily updated as evidence emerges, and CMG implementation supported by training, and access to treatments recommended. ConclusionOur findings highlight important gaps in Covid-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting different at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. The findings highlight a need for a new, harmonized evidence-based, that is inclusive and adaptable for different context, incorporating implementation support, to improve access in evidence-based care recommendations during an emergency.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWorking under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. Protecting the physical and psychological health of HCWs is a key priority. This study assessed the perceptions of European hospital HCWs of local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on their emotional wellbeing. MethodsWe performed two rounds of an international cross-sectional survey, between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks (round 1), and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling (round 2). Main outcome measures were (1) behavioural determinants of HCW adherence with IPC procedures, (2) WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. Results2,289 HCWs (round 1: n=190, round 2: n=2,099) from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age of respondents was 42 ({+/-}11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n=1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n=527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value <.01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8). ConclusionsIn Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
