RESUMO
Background and aimFollowing emergency approval of vaccines, the amount of scientific literature investigating population hesitancy towards vaccination against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has increased exponentially. Nevertheless, the associated psychological behaviors with this phenomenon are still not clearly understood. This study aims to assess the psychological antecedents of the Arab population toward COVID-19 vaccines. MethodsA cross-sectional, online study using a validated Arabic version of the 5C questionnaire was conducted through different media platforms in different Arabic-speaking countries. The questionnaire included three sections: socio-demographics, COVID-19 related questions, and the 5C scale of vaccine psychological antecedents, namely confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. ResultsA total of 4,474 participants, 40.8% males from 13 Arab countries were included in the study. About 26.7% of participants had confidence in COVID-19 vaccination, 10.7% had complacency, 96.5% had no constraints, 48.8% had calculation and 40.4% had collective responsibility. The 5C antecedents showed variation among countries with confidence and collective responsibility being higher in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (59% and 58%, respectively), complacency and constraints were higher in Morocco (21% and 7%, respectively) and calculation was higher in Sudan (60%). Regression analysis revealed that sex, age, educational degrees, being a health care professional, getting a COVID-19 infection, having a relative infected or died from COVID-19 can affect the 5C psychological antecedents by different degrees. Conclusion and recommendationsWide variations of psychological antecedents between Arab countries exist. Different determinants can affect vaccine psychological antecedents.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe presented meta-analysis was developed in response to the publication of several studies addressing COVID-19 vaccines hesitancy. We aimed to identify the proportion of vaccine acceptance and rejection, and factors affecting vaccine hesitancy worldwide especially with the fast emergency approval of vaccines. MethodsOnline database search was performed, and relevant studies were included with no language restriction. A meta-analysis was conducted using R software to obtain the random effect model of the pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance and rejection. Eggers regression test was performed to assess publication bias. Quality assessment was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. ResultsThirty-nine out of 12246 articles met the predefined inclusion criteria. All studies were cross-sectional designs. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 17% (95% CI: 14-20) while the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 75% (95% CI: 71-79). The vaccine hesitancy and the vaccine acceptance showed high heterogeneity (I2=100%). Case fatality ratio and the number of reported cases had significant effect on the vaccine acceptance as the pooled proportion of vaccine acceptance increased by 39.95% (95% CI: 20.1-59.8) for each 1% increase in case fatality (P<0.0001) and decreased by 0.1% (95% CI: -0.2-0.01) for each 1000 reported case of COVID-19, P= 0.0183). ConclusionTransparency in reporting the number of newly diagnosed COVID-19 cases and deaths is mandatory as these factors are the main determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.
RESUMO
COVID-19 pandemic raises an extraordinary challenge to the healthcare systems globally. The governments are taking key measures to constrain the corresponding health, social, and economic impacts, however, these measures vary depending on the nature of the crisis and country-specific circumstances. ObjectivesConsidering different incidence and mortality rates across different countries, we aimed at explaining variance of these variables by performing accurate and precise multivariate analysis with aid of suitable predictors, accordingly, the model would proactively guide the governmental responses to the crisis. MethodsUsing linear and exponential time series analysis, this research aimed at studying the incidence and mortality rates of COVID-19 in 18 countries during the first six months of the pandemic, and further utilize multivariate techniques to explain the variance in monthly exponential growth rates of cases and deaths with aid of a set of different predictors: the recorded Google mobility trends towards six categories of places, daily average temperature, daily humidity, and key socioeconomic attributes of each country. ResultsThe analysis showed that changes in mobility trends were the most significant predictors of the incidence and mortality rates, temperature and humidity were also significant but to a much lesser extent, on the other hand, the socioeconomic attributes did not contribute significantly to explaining different incidence and mortality rates across countries. ConclusionChanges in mobility trends across countries dramatically affected the incidence and mortality rates across different countries, thus, it might be used as a proxy measure of contact frequency.
RESUMO
Many recent studies have investigated the role of either Chloroquine (CQ) alone, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) alone, or CQ/HCQ in combination with azithromycin (AZM) in management of the emerging coronavirus. This systematic review and meta-analysis of either published or preprint observational or interventional studies were conducted to assess the cure rate, duration of hospital stay, radiological progression, clinical worsening, need for mechanical ventilation, the occurrence of side effects, and mortality. A search of the online database through June 2020 was performed and examined the reference lists of pertinent articles for in-vivo studies only. Pooled relative risks (RRs), standard mean, of 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the random-effects model. ResultsThe duration of hospital stay was shorter in the standard care in comparison with HCQ group, the standard mean of hospital stay was 0.57, 95% CI, and 0.20-0.94. Overall virological cure, or more specifically at day 4, 10, and 14 among patients exposed to HCQ did not differ significantly from the standard care [(RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.15), (RR=1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.65), (RR=1.21, 95%CI 0.70-2.01), and (RR=0.98, 95% CI, 0.76-1.27)] respectively. Radiological improvement or clinical worsening was not statistically different between HCQ and standard care [(RR=1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.65) and (RR=1.28, 95% CI 0.33-4.99)]. The need for mechanical ventilation (MV) was not significant between the HCQ group and the standard care (RR= 1.5, 95%CI 0.78-2.89). Side effects were more reported in the HCQ group than the standard care (RR=3.14, 95% CI 1.58-6.24). Mortality among HCQ was not affected by receiving HCQ (RR=3.14, 95% CI 1.58-6.24), meta-regression analysis revealed that country is a strong predictor of mortality. The duration of hospital stay among the HCQ and AZM didnt differ significantly from the standard care (standard mean= 0.77, 95% CI 0.46-1.08). Despite virological cure and need for MV did not differ significantly [(RR= 3.23, 95% CI 0.70-14.97) and (RR=1.27, 95%CI 0.7-2.13)] respectively. Mortality among the HCQ+AZM was more significantly higher than among the standard care (RR= 1.8, 95% CI 1.19-2.27). ConclusionDespite the scarcity of published data of good quality, the effectiveness and safety of either HCQ alone or in combination with AZM in treating the pandemic of COVID-19 cant be assured. Future randomized control trials need to be carried out to verify this conclusion. RegistrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020192084
