Vaccinating the Frontlines: A Qualitative Exploration of Hospital Healthcare Worker Perspectives on Influenza and COVID-19 Immunization.

Introduction: Although they face higher occupational risk of contracting viral respiratory infections, hospital healthcare worker vaccine hesitancy persists. While most studies have used survey methods to quantify the prevalence of and reasons for healthcare worker vaccine hesitancy, this study employs a qualitative approach to understand their attitudes and beliefs associated with influenza and COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: To understand frontline healthcare worker experiences and perspectives on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination, 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted in summer/fall 2022 with staff recruited from two Johns Hopkins hospitals in Maryland. An in-depth, key informant interview was conducted with an expert in public health audience engagement. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for thematic and Framework analysis using NVivo software (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Results: Healthcare workers engaged in little influenza vaccine information seeking due to their familiarity with the disease and low perceived disease severity. Approximately half (n=16) of healthcare workers reported no vaccine hesitancy towards influenza or COVID-19 vaccines. No physicians or physician assistants expressed any vaccine hesitancy, while most nurses expressed some (n=10). More than half of the women (n=14) expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to none of the men. Structural factors including hospital tier, unit assignment, and professional role influenced perceived risk of disease exposure and subsequent healthcare worker vaccination decisions. Institutional policies, including mandates and a pro-vaccine environment encouraged vaccination uptake. Healthcare workers reported being more receptive to vaccine messaging that focused on protection from disease, scientific and public health data and their heightened occupational exposure to pathogens. Conclusions: Despite their medical knowledge, healthcare workers are susceptible to vaccine hesitancy. Strategies to address specific concerns are needed and can be informed by our findings. A flexible and multi-pronged approach that considers individual anxieties, workplace structures, and the need for open communication with tailored messaging is necessary to promote vaccine acceptance in healthcare settings. KEY MESSAGES: What is already known on this topic: Healthcare worker vaccine hesitancy has been associated with many factors including race, gender, age and concerns about vaccine safety.What this study adds: Much of the research on healthcare worker vaccine hesitancy has used surveys and questionnaires giving a broad description of the prevalence and patterns of vaccine hesitancy in the healthcare workforce. This qualitative study examines vaccine behavior (rather than merely intent) through a cross comparison of healthcare workers' experiences and attitudes towards influenza and COVID-19 vaccination.How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Study findings can be used to help tailor vaccine messaging to hospital healthcare workers which could offset concerns regarding vaccine efficacy and risk, to promote vaccine uptake.

Sex and gender differences in adverse events following influenza and COVID-19 vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Active and passive surveillance studies have found that a greater proportion of females report adverse events (AE) following receipt of either the COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccine compared to males. In a predominately young adult female population of healthcare workers, we sought to determine the intersection of biological sex and sociocultural gender differences in prospective active reporting of vaccine outcomes, which remains poorly characterized. METHODS: This cohort study enrolled Johns Hopkins Health System healthcare workers (HCWs) who were recruited from the mandatory annual fall 2019-2022 influenza vaccine and the fall 2022 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine campaigns. Vaccine recipients were enrolled the day of vaccination and AE surveys were administered two days post-vaccination for bivalent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine recipients. Data were collected regarding the presence of a series of solicited local and systemic AEs. Open-ended answers about participants' experiences with AEs also were collected for the COVID-19 vaccine recipients. RESULTS: Females were more likely to report local AEs after either influenza (OR = 2.28, p = 0.001) or COVID-19 (OR = 2.57, p = 0.008) vaccination compared to males, regardless of age or race. Males and females had comparable probabilities of reporting systemic AEs after either influenza (OR = 1.18, p = 0.552) or COVID-19 (OR = 0.96, p = 0.907) vaccination. Hormonal birth control use did not impact the rates of reported AEs following influenza vaccination among reproductive-aged female HCWs. Women reported more interruptions in their daily routine following COVID-19 vaccination than men and were more likely to seek out self-treatment. More women than men scheduled their COVID-19 vaccination before their days off in anticipation of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-inclusive policies to inform more effective mandatory occupational health vaccination strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential disruption of AEs on occupational responsibilities following mandated vaccination for healthcare workers, a predominately female population, and to more fully characterize the post-vaccination behavioral differences between men and women.

Research that addresses both the sex and gender differences of vaccine outcomes and behaviors is lacking. In this survey study of healthcare workers, comprised of mostly reproductive-aged females/women, we investigated biological sex (male/female) and gender (man/woman) differences in vaccine adverse events and outcomes following either influenza or bivalent COVID-19 vaccination.Regardless of age or race, females were more likely to report local (at injection site), but not systemic (whole body), adverse events than males, consistent across influenza and bivalent COVID-19 vaccine cohorts. Sex hormones are hypothesized to play a role in the differences in immune response following vaccination between males and females. We investigated if hormonal birth control use among females may be associated with differences in vaccine adverse events among the influenza vaccine cohort. However, there was no difference in the likelihood of reporting adverse events between birth control users and non-users. Based on open-ended responses to survey questions, women were found to report more interruptions to their daily routine than men following COVID-19 vaccination. Women were also more likely to seek out self-treatment with over-the-counter medication and intentionally schedule their vaccination around days off in anticipation of adverse events.With nearly 80% of healthcare jobs held by women, even higher for direct patient care positions like nursing, females/women may be disproportionately impacted by mandated annual vaccinations. Vaccinations are necessary for the prevention of disease transmission; however, our findings highlight a need for more equitable occupational vaccine strategies that consider both sex and gender differences.

Sex and gender differences in adverse events following receipt of influenza and COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers.

Introduction: Active and passive surveillance studies have found that a greater proportion of females report adverse events (AE) following receipt of either the COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccine compared to males. We sought to determine the intersection of biological sex and sociocultural gender differences in prospective active reporting of vaccine outcomes, which remains poorly characterized. Methods: This cohort study enrolled Johns Hopkins Health System healthcare workers (HCWs) who were recruited from the annual fall 2019-2022 influenza vaccine and the fall 2022 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine campaigns. Vaccine recipients were enrolled the day of vaccination and AE surveys were administered two days post-vaccination (DPV) for bivalent COVID-19 and Influenza vaccine recipients. Data were collected regarding the presence of a series of solicited local and systemic AEs. Open-ended answers about participants' experiences with AEs also were collected for the COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Results: Females were more likely to report local AEs after influenza (OR=2.28, p=0.001) or COVID-19 (OR=2.57, p=0.008) vaccination compared to males, regardless of age or race. Males and females had comparable probabilities of reporting systemic AEs after influenza (OR=1.18, p=0.552) or COVID-19 (OR=0.96, p=0.907) vaccination. Exogenous hormones from birth control use did not impact the rates of reported AEs following COVID-19 vaccination among reproductive-aged female HCWs. Women reported more interruptions in their daily routine following COVID-19 vaccination than men and were more likely to seek out self-treatment. More women than men scheduled their COVID-19 vaccination before their days off in anticipation of AEs. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-inclusive policies to inform more effective occupational health vaccination strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential disruption of AEs on occupational responsibilities following mandated vaccination for healthcare workers and to more fully characterize the post-vaccination behavioral differences between men and women. KEY MESSAGE: What is already known on this topic: ⇒ Among diversely aged adults 18-64 years, females report more AEs to vaccines, including the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, than males.⇒ Vaccine AEs play a role in shaping vaccine hesitancy and uptake.⇒ Vaccine uptake related to influenza and COVID-19 are higher among men than women.⇒ Research that addresses both the sex and gender disparities of vaccine outcomes and behaviors is lacking.What this study adds: ⇒ This prospective active reporting study uses both quantitative and qualitative survey data to examine sex and gender differences in AEs following influenza or COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of reproductive-aged healthcare workers.How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: ⇒ Sex and gender differences in AEs and perceptions relating to vaccination should drive the development of more equitable and effective vaccine strategies and policies in occupational health settings.

The intersection of gender and race in older adults' decision to receive COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccines are essential public health tools for protecting older adults, who are at high risk of severe outcomes associated with COVID-19. Little is known, however, about how older adults approach the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We hypothesized that intersections between gender and race may provide unique insight into the decision-making process and the factors that lead to vaccine uptake among hesitant individuals. We performed in-depth interviews with 24 older adults who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 and used the framework approach with an intersectional lens to analyze data. Two typologies emerged: eager compliers did not question the need to vaccinate, whereas hesitant compliers were skeptical of the vaccine and underwent a thorough decision-making process prior to vaccination. For eager compliers, the vaccine offered protection from a disease that posed a serious threat, and few risks were perceived. In contrast, hesitant compliers perceived risks associated with the vaccine product or mistrusted the infrastructure that led to rapid vaccine development. Hesitancy was greater among Black participants, and only Black participants reported mistrust in vaccine infrastructure. At the intersection of gender and race, a 'White male effect' was observed, whereby White men perceived the fewest risks associated with the vaccine, and Black women were the most fearful of serious side effects. Nearly all hesitant compliers ultimately got vaccinated due to the threat of COVID-19. Convenient access through vaccine clinics in senior's buildings was pivotal for hesitant compliers and external and internal influences had differential impacts by race and gender. Emphasizing the risk of COVID-19, convenient and accessible opportunities for vaccination, and messages that are targeted to specific groups are likely to increase vaccine uptake among older adults.

Mentoring the working nurse: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring programs for nurses already in the health workforce are growing in importance. Yet, the settings, goals, scale, and key features of these programs are not widely known. OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesize research on in-service nurse mentoring programs. METHODS: We reviewed nurse mentoring research from six databases. Studies either referred explicitly to in-service nurse mentoring programs, were reviews of such programs, or concerned nurse training/education in which mentoring was an essential component. RESULTS: We included 69 articles from 11 countries, published from 1995 to 2019. Most articles were from high-income countries (n = 46) and in rural areas (n = 22). Programs were developed to strengthen clinical care (particularly maternal and neonatal care), promote evidence-based practice, promote retention, support new graduate nurses, and develop nurse leaders. Of the articles with sufficient data, they typically described small programs implemented in one facility (n = 23), with up to ten mentors (n = 13), with less than 50 mentees (n = 25), meeting at least once a month (n = 27), and lasting at least a year (n = 24). While over half of the studies (n = 36) described programs focused almost exclusively on clinical skills acquisition, many (n = 33) specified non-clinical professional development activities. Reflective practice featured to a varying extent in many articles (n = 29). Very few (n = 6) explicitly identified the theoretical basis of their programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the literature about in-service nurse mentoring comes mostly from small programs in high-income countries, the largest nurse mentoring programs in the world are in low- and middle-income countries. Much can be learned from studying these programs in greater detail. Future research should analyze key features of programs to make models of mentoring more transparent and translatable. If carefully designed and flexibly implemented, in-service nurse mentoring represents an exciting avenue for enhancing the role of nurses and midwives in people-centered health system strengthening. The contents in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.