SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination is Not Associated With Involuntary Childlessness in Female Healthcare Workers: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the causes of the recent birth rate decline in high-income countries worldwide. During the pandemic, concern about the effects on reproductive health has caused vaccine hesitancy. We investigated the association of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection with involuntary childlessness. METHODS: Females in fertility age within a prospective multicenter cohort of healthcare workers (HCW) were followed since August 2020. Data on baseline health, SARS-CoV-2-infection, and vaccination were obtained and regularly updated, in which serum samples were collected repetitively and screened for anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. In October 2023, participants indicated the presence of involuntary childlessness with onset during the pandemic, whereas those indicating an onset before the pandemic were excluded. The association of involuntary childlessness and SARS-CoV-2-vaccination and infection was investigated using univariable and multivariable analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare those reporting involuntary childlessness with those birthing a child since 2020. RESULTS: Of 798 participants, 26 (3.2%) reported involuntary childlessness starting since the pandemic. Of the involuntary childless women, 73.1% (19/26) were vaccinated compared to 86.0% (664/772) without involuntary childlessness (p = 0.73). SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported by 76.9% (20/26) compared to 72.4% (559/772) of controls (p = 0.64). Neither SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (aOR 0.91 per dose, 95%CI 0.67-1.26) nor infection (aOR per infection 1.05, 95%CI 0.62-1.71) was associated with involuntary childlessness. Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Among female HCW of fertility age, 3.2% indicated involuntary childlessness, which is comparable to pre-pandemic data. No association between involuntary childlessness and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection was found.

SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reasons for non-vaccination among healthcare workers from eastern and northern Switzerland: results from a nested multicentre cross-sectional study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: We aimed to assess the extent of SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity elicited by previous infections and/or vaccination among healthcare workers, and to identify reasons why healthcare workers decided against vaccination. METHODS: This nested cross-sectional study included volunteer healthcare workers from 14 healthcare institutions in German-speaking Switzerland. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were available for healthcare workers. In May and June 2022, participants answered electronic questionnaires regarding baseline characteristics including SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status (with one or more vaccine doses defined as vaccinated) and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Unvaccinated participants indicated their reasons for non-vaccination. Participants underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies. Antibody prevalence was described across age groups. In addition, we performed multivariable logistic regression to identify baseline characteristics independently associated with non-vaccination and described reasons for non-vaccination. RESULTS: Among 22,438 eligible employees, 3,436 (15%) participated; the median age was 43.7 years (range 16-73), 2,794 (81.3%) were female, and 1,407 (47.7%) identified as nurses; 3,414 (99.4%) underwent serology testing, among whom 3,383 (99.0%) had detectable anti-S (3,357, 98.3%) antibodies, anti-N (2,396, 70.1%) antibodies, or both (2,370, 69.4%). A total of 296 (8.6%) healthcare workers were unvaccinated, whereas 3,140 (91.4%) were vaccinated. In multivariable analysis, age (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), being a physician (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.75-5.92) or administrator (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.80), and having higher education (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.09-4.57) were positively associated with vaccine uptake, whereas working in non-acute care (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.97), active smoking (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91), and taking prophylactic home remedies against SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.56) were negatively associated. Important reasons for non-vaccination were a belief that the vaccine might not have long-lasting immunity (267/291, 92.1%) and a preference for gaining naturally acquired instead of vaccine-induced immunity (241/289, 83.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all healthcare workers in our cohort had specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from natural infection and/or from vaccination. Young healthcare workers and those working in non-acute settings were less likely to be vaccinated, whereas physicians and administrative staff showed higher vaccination uptake. Presumed ineffectiveness of the vaccine is an important reason for non-vaccination.

Studying feasibility and effects of a two-stage nursing staff training in residential geriatric care using a 30 month mixed-methods design [ISRCTN24344776].

BACKGROUND: Transfer techniques and lifting weights often cause back pain and disorders for nurses in geriatric care. The Kinaesthetics care conception claims to be an alternative, yielding benefits for nurses as well as for clients.Starting a multi-step research program on the effects of Kinaesthetics, we assess the feasibility of a two-stage nursing staff training and a pre-post research design. Using quantitative and qualitative success criteria, we address mobilisation from the bed to a chair and backwards, walking with aid and positioning in bed on the staff level as well as on the resident level. In addition, effect estimates should help to decide on and to prepare a controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Standard basic and advanced Kinaesthetics courses (each comprising four subsequent days and an additional counselling day during the following four months) are offered to n = 36 out of 60 nurses in a residential geriatric care home, who are in charge of 76 residents. N = 22 residents needing movement support are participating to this study.On the staff level, measurements include focus group discussions, questionnaires, physical strain self-assessment (Borg scale), video recordings and external observation of patient assistance skills using a specialised instrument (SOPMAS). Questionnaires used on the resident level include safety, comfort, pain, and level of own participation during mobilisation. A functional mobility profile is assessed using a specialised test procedure (MOTPA).Measurements will take place at baseline (T0), after basic training (T1), and after the advanced course (T2). Follow-up focus groups will be offered at T1 and 10 months later (T3). DISCUSSION: Ten criteria for feasibility success are established before the trial, assigned to resources (missing data), processes (drop-out of nurses and residents) and science (minimum effects) criteria. This will help to make rational decision on entering the next stage of the research program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24344776.

A randomised controlled trial investigating motor skill training as a function of attentional focus in old age.

BACKGROUND: Motor learning research has had little impact on clinical applications and rarely extended to research about how older adults learn motor skills. There is consistent evidence that motor skill performance and learning can be enhanced by giving learners instructions that direct their attention. The aim of this study was to test whether elderly individuals that receive an external focus instruction during training of dynamic balance skills would learn in a different manner compared to individuals that received an internal focus instruction. METHODS: This randomised trial included 26 older persons (81 +/- 6 years) that were training functional balance twice a week for the duration of 5 weeks. Learning outcomes were recorded after every training session. Weight shifting score and dynamic balance parameters (Biodex Balance System), components of the Extended Timed-Get-Up-and-Go test, five chair rises, and falls efficacy (FES-I) was assessed at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: Participation for training sessions was 94%. No differences between groups were found following 5 weeks of training for weight shifting score, dynamic balance index and dynamic balance time (p < 0.95, p = 0.16, p < 0.50), implying no learning differences between training groups. Extended Timed-Get-Up-and-Go components Sit-to-stand, p = .036; Gait initiation, p = .039; Slow down, stop, turnaround, and sit down, p = 0.011 and the Fes-I (p = 0.014) showed improvements for the total group, indicating that function improved compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: A 5-week balance training improved weight shifting scores and dynamic balance parameters as well as functional abilities. The observed improvements were independent from the type of attentional focus instructions. The findings provide support for the proposition of different motor learning principles in older adults compared to younger adults.