Covid-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal among Canadian healthcare workers: A multicenter survey

Incidence and risk factors of COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital and the effectiveness of booster vaccination among health care workers: A retrospective cohort study, January 2020 to June 2022

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) face a higher risk of infection and may transmit pathogens to patients during a pandemic. This study aims to evaluate infection-control measures by analyzing the incidence and risk factors of COVID-19 and estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) at a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Republic of Korea.

METHODS

This study included 2,516 HCWs from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. Data were analyzed to determine the incidence density and cumulative incidence; the results were compared by the age- and gender-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIR). VE was estimated with multivariate Cox proportional-hazard models as 1-adjusted hazard ratio × 100%.

RESULTS

SIR indicated a lower COVID-19 risk in the hospital population than in the general Korean population (SIR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.87). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that, compared to doctors, nonmedical service supporters and other HCWs (excluding doctors and nurses) were high-risk groups (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.72 [1.04-2.83] and 1.76 [1.20-2.58], respectively). Compared to the outpatient unit, the emergency department was a high-risk department (1.70 [1.16-2.50]). The VE of the booster dose was 55.47%, compared to no or incomplete vaccination (95% CI: 22.63-74.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Besides encouraging HCWs vaccination, effective infection-control measures should target high-risk groups and departments.

Understanding the impact of chronic diseases on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy using propensity score matching: Internet-based cross-sectional study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether chronic diseases are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and explore factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in patients with chronic diseases.

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy has been acknowledged as one of the greatest hazards to public health. However, little information is available about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases who may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe disease or death.

METHODS

From 6 to 9 August 2021, we performed an internet-based cross-sectional survey with 22,954 participants (14.78% participants with chronic diseases). Propensity score matching with 1:1 nearest neighbourhood was used to reduce confounding factors between patients with chronic diseases and the general population. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, the factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified among patients with chronic diseases.

RESULTS

Both before and after propensity score matching, patients with chronic diseases had higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than the general population. In addition, self-reported poor health, multiple chronic diseases, lower sociodemographic backgrounds and lower trust in nurses and doctors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic diseases were more hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. Nurses should focus on patients with chronic diseases with poor health conditions, low socioeconomic backgrounds and low trust in the healthcare system.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Clinical nurses are recommended to not only pay more attention to the health status and sociodemographic characteristics of patients with chronic diseases but also build trust between nurses and patients by improving service levels and professional capabilities in clinical practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients or the public were not involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, or the design or implementation of the study. However, all participants were invited to complete the digital informed consent and questionnaires.

Cultural and social attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and factors associated with vaccine acceptance in adults across the globe: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify and synthesise evidence on cultural and social attitudes towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and factors associated with vaccine acceptance in the adult population.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases were searched (CINAHL, Coronavirus Research Database, Embase, MEDLINE, Nursing and Allied Health Database, and Web of Science Core Collection). Additional studies were identified through Google Scholar and hand searching the reference lists of all studies included in the review.

METHOD

The searches were conducted to identify all relevant studies published in English, from December 2019 to December 2021. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) were used to critically appraise the quality of included studies. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

1260 records were identified, of which 38 studies were included in the review. Low COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates were found among young people, females, non-medical students, and even some healthcare workers, which were associated with misinformation obtained through social media platforms, unknown side effects, questionable conspiracy theories, and doubts about efficacy and safety. Higher COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates were due to recommendations from healthcare professionals and government sources, and the perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance varies across the globe. To increase the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health education programmes should be promoted effectively and target specifically the groups who are most hesitant to receive the vaccine such as young people, females, and non-medical students. Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers can affect vaccination rates as the majority of the population views them as a trustworthy source for vaccine-related knowledge. Staff training is important to enhance their confidence and communication skills in providing information about COVID-19 vaccination to combat the misunderstanding of the public and encourage vaccine uptake.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021248016.

Differences in Vaccination Consultation Preferred by Primary Health Care Workers and Residents in Community Settings

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the preference of primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services to provide evidence for vaccine hesitancy intervention strategies.

METHODS

A discrete choice model (DCM) was constructed to evaluate the preference difference between primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services in China during May-July 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 282 residents and 204 HCWs were enrolled in this study. The residents preferred consulting with an HCW-led approach (β = 2.168), with specialized content (β = 0.954), and accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 1.552). In contrast, the HCWs preferred face-to-face consultation (β = 0.540) with an HCW-led approach (β = 0.458) and specialized content (β = 0.409), accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 0.831). College residents and residents with underlying self-reported disease may be near-critically inclined to choose traditional consultation (an offline, face-to-face consultation with standardized content and more prolonged duration) rather than a new-media consulting group (an online consultation with specialized content within 5 min). Urban HCWs preferred long-term consultation groups (the resident-led offline consultation with follow-up lasting more than 5 min). In contrast, rural HCWs preferred efficient consultation (the HCW-led, short-duration, standardized offline consultation mode).

CONCLUSION

The selection preference for vaccine consultation reveals a gap between providers and demanders, with different groups exhibiting distinct preferences. Identifying these targeted gaps can help design more acceptable and efficient interventions, increasing their likelihood of success and leading to better resource allocation for policymakers to develop targeted vaccination policies.

Did the health care vaccine mandate work? An evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on vaccine uptake and infection risk in a large cohort of Canadian health care workers

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the impact of health care vaccine mandates on vaccine uptake and infection risk in a cohort of Canadian health care workers (HCWs).

METHODS

We conduct interrupted time series analysis through a regression discontinuity in time approach to estimate the immediate and delayed impact of the mandate. Multilevel mixed effect modeling fitted with restricted maximum likelihood was used to estimate impact on infection risk.

RESULTS

The immediate and sustained effects of the mandate was a 0.19% (P < .05) and a 0.012% (P < .05) increase in the daily proportion of unvaccinated HCWs getting their first dose, respectively. An additional 623 (95% confidence interval: 613-667) HCWs received first doses compared to the predicted uptake absent the mandate. Adjusted test positivity declined by 0.053% (95% confidence interval: 0.035%, 0.069) for every additional day the mandate was in effect.

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate that the mandate was associated with significant increases in vaccine uptake and infection risk reduction in the cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the benefit that vaccination could bring to HCWs, understanding strategies to enhance uptake is crucial for bolstering health system resilience, but steps must be taken to avert approaches that sacrifice trust, foster animosity, or exacerbate staffing constraints for short-term results.

A psychometric assessment of a novel scale for evaluating vaccination attitudes amidst a major public health crisis

Despite abundant scientific evidence supporting immunization benefits, vaccine hesitancy remains a significant global health concern, particularly during public health crises. Exploring public attitudes towards vaccination is crucial. This study aimed to develop and validate a tailored Public Vaccination Attitudes Scale specifically under the unique circumstances of a public health crisis. A psychometric evaluation was conducted using a cross-sectional study during the peak of a major public health crisis. The scale was developed and its psychometric properties validated using three approaches: (1) generating the item pool through literature research and focus group discussions; (2) assessing the items through expert consultation; and (3) evaluating construct validity, content validity, and internal consistency reliability through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Data from a total of 3921 respondents were randomly divided into two subsets, one for EFA (n = 1935) and the other for CFA (n = 1986). A 22-item draft scale with five factors was created after literature research and focus group discussion. The content validity of this scale ranged between 0.88 and 1.00. EFA showed a 17-item scale with four factors (Cronbach's α > 0.7) accounting for 68.044% of the total variance. CFA showed that the values of the fit indices, including convergent validity and discriminant validity, were excellent or acceptable. The overall Cronbach's α was 0.874, and each factor ranged from 0.726 to 0.885. This study introduces a valuable tool for assessing vaccination attitudes during public health crises, aiding researchers, policymakers, and nurses in combating vaccine hesitancy. Emphasizing the importance of fostering vaccine acceptance, it enhances disease control during emergencies, contributing to the knowledge needed for more effective public health strategies and crisis responses.

Assessment of Covid-19 vaccine confidence among healthcare personnel in the safety-net sector in the United States and Puerto Rico

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine confidence among healthcare personnel in the safety net sector of the United States and Puerto Rico. This study aimed to examine the extent to which increased knowledge and positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy were associated with healthcare workers' COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation of the vaccine to all patients.

METHODS

Online survey data were collected from health care workers working in Free and Charitable Clinics across the United States and Federally Qualified Health Centers in Puerto Rico. The survey consisted of 62 questions covering various demographic measures and constructs related to healthcare workers' vaccination status, beliefs, and recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination. Statistical analyses, including multivariate analysis, were conducted to identify the factors associated with the COVID-19 vaccine status and recommendations among healthcare personnel.

RESULTS

Among the 2273 respondents, 93% reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. The analysis revealed that respondents who believed that COVID-19 vaccines were efficacious and safe were three times more likely to be vaccinated and twice as likely to recommend them to all their patients. Respondents who believed they had received adequate information about COVID-19 vaccination were 10 times more likely to be vaccinated and four times more likely to recommend it to all their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that healthcare workers' confidence in COVID-19 vaccines is closely tied to their level of knowledge, positive beliefs, and attitudes about vaccine safety and efficacy. The study emphasizes the significance of healthcare workers feeling well informed and confident in their knowledge to recommend the vaccine to their patients. These findings have important implications for the development of strategies to boost COVID-19 vaccine confidence among healthcare workers and increase vaccine uptake among patients.

The second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy among health care workers in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak in China exposed health care workers (HCWs) to an increased risk of infection. The acquired immunity rapidly diminishes after the previous COVID-19 vaccination and the second booster vaccination has been recommended in several countries. HCWs are a priority group for vaccination because they are at increased risk of being infected, however, a certain amount of HCWs were hesitant.

METHODS

The survey was conducted among 5805 HCWs in China from January 5 to February 9, 2023. Questionnaire included sociodemographic information, COVID-19-related variables, psychological factors, and the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influencing factors of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy.

RESULTS

42.2% of HCWs self-reported having the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy. Occupations, years of working, COVID-19 infection status were associated with less vaccine hesitancy. HCWs who had received 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to be hesitant compared to those had not received. HCWs with PTSD symptoms and anxiety symptoms were more likely to be hesitant. No relation was observed between COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy and age, marriage, salary, and perceived an increased risk of COVID-19 infection due to work (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of HCWs were hesitant to accept the second dose of the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Incorporating vaccine knowledge and new evidence into routine health educations and procedures to raise confidence and reduce complacency may be effective and feasible in promoting the vaccination and implementing future vaccination programs.

Despite mandated primary series, health care personnel still hesitant about COVID-19 vaccine and immunizing children

IMPORTANCE

Healthcare personnel (HCP) are important messengers for promoting vaccines, for both adults and children. Our investigation describes perceptions of fully vaccinated HCP about COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and primary series for their children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine associations between sociodemographic, employment characteristics and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines among HCP overall and the subset of HCP with children, who were all mandated to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, in a large US metropolitan region.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of fully vaccinated HCP from a large integrated health system.

SETTING

Participants were electronically enrolled within a multi-site NYS healthcare system from December 21, 2021, to January 21, 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 78,000 employees, approximately one-third accessed promotional emails; 6,537 employees started surveys and 4165 completed them. Immunocompromised HCP (self-reported) were excluded.

EXPOSURE(S) (FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES)

We conducted a survey with measures including demographic variables, employment history, booster status, child vaccination status; vaccine recommendation, confidence, and knowledge.

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for all dose types - primary series or booster doses - among HCP.

RESULTS

Findings from 4,165 completed surveys indicated that almost 17.2 % of all HCP, including administrative and clinical staff, were hesitant or unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine booster, despite the NYS recommendation to do so. Depending on age group, between 20 % and 40 % of HCP were hesitant about having their children vaccinated for COVID-19, regardless of clinical versus non-clinical duties. In multivariable regression analyses, lack of booster dose, unvaccinated children, females, income less than $50,000, and residence in Manhattan remained significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite mandated COVID-19 vaccination, a substantial proportion of HCP remained vaccine hesitant towards adult booster doses and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. While provider recommendation has been the mainstay of combatting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, a gap exists between HCP-despite clinical or administrative status-and the ability to communicate the need for vaccination in a healthcare setting. While previous studies describe the HCP vaccine mandate as a positive force to overcome vaccine hesitancy, we have found that despite a mandate, there is still substantial COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and reluctance to vaccinate children.

Vaccinating without complete willingness against COVID-19: Personal and social aspects of Israeli nursing students and faculty members

Soon after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, it became clear that vaccination will be the most useful tool to combat the disease. Despite the apparent safety and efficacy of the developed anti-COVID-19 vaccines, relatively high percentages of the population worldwide refused to get vaccinated, including many health workers and health students. The present cross-sectional study examined the motives, attitudes, and personal characteristics of those who did not get vaccinated against COVID-19 or vaccinated without complete willingness among nursing students and nursing faculty members in Israel (n = 472). Results show that the vast majority of the study participants (97%) received at least one dose of the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. Nearly 37% of the participants indicated that they received the vaccine without complete willingness. As compared to faculty members, nursing students reported lower trust in the efficacy of the vaccine, perceived the COVID-19 pandemic as a health threat to a lesser extent, exhibited lower institutional and personal trust, and had higher levels of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Non-Jewish participants were at risk of vaccinating without complete willingness. These findings underscore the need for developing evidence-based strategies to promote the safety and efficacy of the anti-COVID-19 vaccines in nursing schools.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Workers: A Phenomenological Study of Skepticism

RATIONALE

 Despite the prioritizing the healthcare workers (HCWs) for COVID-19 in a systematized manner the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy was observed in them. HCWs are presumed to be pre-emptive in up-taking the vaccine due to their closest association and having reasonable background information. Hence, we intended to explore and investigate the phenomenology of skepticism and hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs.

METHOD

A sequential explanatory mixed methods study design incorporating a baseline cross-sectional survey followed by qualitative and semiquantitative text-mining approach was adopted in a tertiary care center in Madhya Pradesh, India. Six hundred seventy-nine HCWs for quantitative data and 30 HCWs for qualitative interviews were surveyed. After determining the quantum and baseline traits of hesitant HCWs, 30 participants were purposively selected for in-depth qualitative analysis based on grounded theory using a framework approach and consolidated from the psychological and philosophical plane of skepticism. This was complemented by a semiquantitative text-mining approach using mono/bigram analysis and network plotting.

RESULTS

Approximately one-fifth of participants (18%,122 out of 679) were initially, and one-tenth of initially hesitant (10 out of 122) were terminally hesitant. Hesitant and non-hesitant participants were similar except for comorbidity status. Five themes emerged namely individual, vaccine-related, social, system, and contextual after thematic consolidation. Words/phrases indicating individualistic desire to knowing more, internal conflicts, and conjecture were mined further. The network plot showed diversified expressions of participants.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a requirement to prime HCWs by offering objective information beforehand and removing diffidence using a systematic approach addressing the psychology and prevalent partisan belief in similar circumstances in the future.

Factors associated with intention to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 booster dose: a cross-sectional study in Peru

Introduction

The pandemic of COVID-19 continues to impact people worldwide, with more than 755 million confirmed cases and more than 6.8 million reported deaths. Although two types of treatment, antiviral and immunomodulatory therapy, have been approved to date, vaccination has been the best method to control the spread of the disease.

Objective

To explore factors associated with the intention to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 booster dose in Peru.

Material and Methods

Cross-sectional study, using virtual and physical surveys of adults with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, where the dependent variable was the intention to be vaccinated (IBV) with the booster dose. We calculated prevalence ratios with 95% confidence intervals, using generalized linear models of the Poisson family with robust varying, determining associations between sociodemographic, clinical, and booster dose perception variables.

Results

Data from 924 adults were analyzed. The IBV of the booster doses was 88.1%. A higher prevalence was associated with being male (aPR = 1.05; 95% CI [1.01-1.10]), having a good perception of efficacy and protective effect (PR = 3.69; 95% CI [2.57-5.30]) and belonging to the health sector (PR = 1.10; 95% CI [1.04-1.16]). There was greater acceptance of the recommendation of physicians and other health professionals (aPR = 1.40; 95% CI [1.27-1.55]).

Conclusions

Factors associated with higher IBV with booster dose include male gender, health sciences, physician recommendation, and good perception of efficacy.

Investigating Beliefs in Anti-Vax Conspiracy Theories among Medical Students

While the doctors' role in immunization is essential, their lack of knowledge or vaccine hesitancy may affect their ability to communicate effectively and educate patients about vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine conspiracy theories. This, in turn, may hinder health policy aimed at fighting infectious diseases. Vaccine hesitancy is prevalent not only among the general population but also among healthcare workers; thus, this study is aimed at assessing future doctors' attitudes towards anti-vax conspiracy theories. A total of 441 medical students at Poznan University of Medical Sciences completed a web-based survey designed to explore their attitudes toward the six most prevalent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. The survey showed that although over 97% of future doctors support vaccinations as an effective form of fighting infectious diseases, and 80% did not believe in any anti-vax conspiracy theory, a significant fraction of 20% of medical students either believed in at least one such theory or were unsure. It has also shown that male and younger students who had not received a flu vaccination and defined themselves as politically right-wing or conservative and religious were more likely to believe in anti-vax conspiracy theories. Our data suggest that, in order to overcome medical students' ambivalent attitudes towards anti-vax conspiracy theories, they should receive more education about the importance of vaccination in preventing disease and about effective ways to combat vaccine hesitancy and anti-vax conspiracy theories.

Differences in COVID-19 Vaccination and Experiences among Patients with Hypertension in Colombia and Jamaica during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

COVID-19 vaccination and shielding targeted hypertensive patients in low and middle income countries. We describe the COVID-19 experiences of hypertensive patients in Colombia and Jamaica and discuss factors associated with vaccine acceptance.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2021 and February 2022 in 4 randomly selected primary care clinics in Colombia and 10 primary care clinics in Jamaica. Participants in Colombia were randomly selected from an electronic medical record. In Jamaica consecutive participants were selected on clinic days for non-communicable diseases. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were conducted by telephone.

Results

576 participants were recruited (50% Jamaica; 68.5% female). Jamaica's participants were younger (36% vs 23% <60 years) and had a lower proportion of persons with "more than high school" education (17.2% vs 30.3%, p=0.011). Colombia's participants more commonly tested positive for COVID-19 (24.2% vs 6.3%, p<0.001), had a family member or close friend test positive for COVID-19 (54.5% vs, 21.6%; p<0.001), experienced loss of a family member or friend due to COVID-19 (21.5% vs 7.8%, p<0.001) and had vaccination against COVID-19 (90.6% vs 46.7%, p<0.001). Fear of COVID-19 (AOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.20-6.13) and residence in Colombia (AOR 5.88 (95% CI 2.38-14.56) were associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Disruption in health services affecting prescription of medication or access to doctors was low (<10%) for both countries.

Conclusion

Health services disruption was low but COVID-19 experiences such as fear of COVID-19 and vaccine acceptance differed significantly between Colombia and Jamaica. Addressing reasons for these differences are important for future pandemic responses.

Ladders and stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors.

Parents' acceptance attitudes towards the vaccination of children based on M-LSGDM approach in China: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring that children receive timely vaccinations is paramount for preventing infectious diseases, and parental attitude plays a pivotal role in this process. This study addresses this gap in the existing literature by examining parental attitudes towards vaccinating their children.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

An online survey including parents' sociodemographic characteristics, risk perception and attitudes towards child vaccination towards COVID-19 was conducted. The modified large-scale group decision-making approach for practicality and binary logistic regression was used to identify the predictors influencing parents' decision-making.

RESULTS

Of the 1292 parents participated, 957 (74.1%) were willing to vaccinate their children, while 335 (25.9%) refused the vaccination. The study indicated that age, parental anxiety regarding child vaccination, concerns about the child's susceptibility to the disease, opinions towards vaccination benefits versus disadvantages, place of residence, average family income and children's health were significant predictors (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While most parents supported childhood vaccination, some opposed it. Addressing persistent barriers is crucial to ensure widespread vaccination and child well-being.

Are COVID-19 vaccination mandates for healthcare workers effective? A systematic review of the impact of mandates on increasing vaccination, alleviating staff shortages and decreasing staff illness

INTRODUCTION

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a cornerstone in the global effort to combat the pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs), being at the forefront of the pandemic response, have been the focus of vaccine mandate policies. This review aims to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 vaccine mandates among HCWs, a critical step in understanding the broader implications of such policies in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

The review seeks to synthesize available literature to contribute to greater understanding of the outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs including vaccine uptake, infection rates, and staffing.

METHODS

A systematic search of relevant literature published from March 2020 to September 2023 was conducted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed for quality assessment of the included articles. A total of 4,779 publications were identified, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze these studies.

RESULTS

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were broadly successful in increasing vaccine uptake in most settings. Although the penalties imposed on unvaccinated HCWs did not lead to major disruption of health services, less well-resourced areas may have been more impacted. Furthermore, there is insufficient literature on the impact of the vaccine mandate on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have significant implications for public health policy and healthcare management. The findings underscore the need for tailored approaches in mandate policies, considering the specific contexts of healthcare settings and the diverse populations of HCWs. While mandates have shown potential in increasing vaccine uptake with minimal impacts to staffing, more work is needed to investigate the impacts of mandates across various contexts. In addition to these impacts, future research should focus on long-term effects and implications on broader public health strategies.

Occupational Health Providers' Perceptions of Employee Vaccine Hesitancy

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the perspectives of occupational health providers (OHPs) on the most frequently encountered clinically relevant reasons for employee vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

We conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey of US OHPs ( N = 217). The survey asked OHPs about the major reasons that employees cite for being unwilling to receive the following three categories of vaccines: COVID-19, annual influenza, and others relevant to the workplace.

RESULTS

Concern about adverse effects was the most frequently reported reason for employee vaccine hesitancy for each vaccine category. Mistrust was reported more frequently for COVID-19 than for the influenza vaccine or other vaccines (χ 2P < 0.05). Targets of employee mistrust included government and researchers or scientists, but mistrust of healthcare providers was uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

These results can be used to inform interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in the occupational health setting.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Nurses in Thailand: Implications, Challenges, and Future Prospects for Attitudes and Vaccine Literacy

Nurses are healthcare workers at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to explore COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, vaccine literacy, and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, and determine factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among nurses in Thailand. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires between May and June 2021. A total of 510 nurses were recruited during the pandemic's third wave in Thailand. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Ten percent (n = 51) of the participants were men, all of whom showed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Of the 459 female nurses, 94.8% (n = 435) accepted COVID-19 vaccination and 91.3% (n = 419) reported previous influenza vaccination. In multiple logistic regression models, previous influenza vaccination, interactive-critical vaccine literacy, and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines were significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among female nurses in Thailand. Those who had previously received influenza vaccination were more likely to accept COVID-19 vaccination. Higher scores for interactive-critical vaccine literacy and positive attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine increased the odds of accepting vaccination, while negative attitudes were associated with decreased vaccine acceptance. Vaccine literacy, together with attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine, had a strong positive effect on increasing vaccination acceptance and reducing vaccine hesitancy. The results suggest that policymakers should consider both attitudes and vaccine literacy when establishing prospective strategies for promoting vaccine acceptance among nurses beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Associated Factors in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Our objective was to know the COVID-19 vaccination coverage in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and its factors associated. A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Patients seen at the MS unit of the University Clinical Hospital of Zaragoza between 2017 and 2021 were included. Variables were obtained by reviewing the specialized and primary care records. Associations between receiving COVID-19 full primo-vaccination, as well as one booster dose since autumn 2022, and the other variables were analyzed using bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression models. Of the 359 included patients, 90.3% received the COVID-19 full primo-vaccination. Having been born in Spain (aOR = 3.40) and having received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine (aOR = 6.77) were associated with receiving the COVID-19 full primo-vaccination. Vaccination with a COVID-19 booster dose was detected in 141 patients (39.3%). Sex (man) (aOR = 2.36), age (60 years or over) (aOR = 6.82), type of MS (Primary Progressive/Secondary Progressive) (aOR = 3.94), and having received the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine (aOR = 27.54) were associated with receiving such a booster dose. The COVID-19 booster dose was administered at the same time as the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine in 57.8% (67/116) of the patients vaccinated with both vaccines. The COVID-19 full primo-vaccination coverage is higher than in other countries. However, the decrease in vaccination coverage with the booster dose makes it necessary to develop strategies to improve it that are not limited to administering the flu vaccine together with the COVID-19 booster dose. Such strategies should be in focus, especially for women under 60 years of age.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians: a qualitative study with general practitioners and paediatricians in Austria and Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy (VH) among general practioners (GPs) and paediatricians. We aim to analyse how and when the healthcare workers (HCWs) developed vaccine-hesitant views and how they transfer these to patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Semistructured interviews with vaccine-hesitant GPs and paediatricians were conducted in Austria and Germany using an explorative qualitative research design.

PARTICIPANTS

We contacted 41 physicians through letters and emails and 10 agreed to participate, five were male and five female.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Ten interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The material was analysed inductively following a grounded theory approach with open coding using the software atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Key themes that were identified were education and career path, understanding of medicine and medical profession, experiences with vaccines, doctor-patient interactions and continuous education activities and the link to VH. GPs and paediatricians' vaccine-hesitant attitudes developed during their medical training and, in particular, during extracurricular training in homeopathy, which most of the participants completed. Most participants work in private practices rather than with contracts with social insurance because they are not satisfied with the health system. Furthermore, they are critical of biomedicine. Most of the interview partners do not consider themselves antivaccination, but are sceptical towards vaccines and especially point out the side effects. Most do not vaccinate in their practices and some do only occasionally. Their vaccine-hesitant views are often fostered through respective online communities of vaccine-hesitant HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies on a connection between complementary medicine and vaccine-hesitant views of HCWs are needed. Education about vaccines and infectious diseases among healthworkers must increase especially tailored towards the use of internet and social media. Physicians should be made aware that through time and empathy towards their patients they could have a positive impact on undecided patients and parents regarding vaccine decisions.

Perception and practices on COVID-19 vaccination and booster dose acceptability among health-care workers - A questionnaire-based study

Aim

To assess the perception and practices on COVID-19 vaccination and to determine the predictors of booster dose acceptability among health-care workers (HCWs) in South India.

Materials and Methods

We conducted an anonymous cross-sectional survey on the perception and practices on COVID-19 vaccination and booster dose acceptability among the HCWs in South India. We prepared an online self-administered validated questionnaire, and the Google form link to it was circulated from March 28, 2022 to April 27, 2022, in the social media groups of the HCWs. We used binary logistic regression to identify the predictors of booster dose acceptability among HCWs.

Results

Overall, we obtained 572 valid responses, of which the majority were from paramedical workers compared to doctors. Most of the respondents were unmarried females aged <30 years. Around 31.6% had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. About 97.9%, 88.8%, and 12.6% of the participants have taken the first, second, and booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. Among the respondents, 19.7% refused to take the booster dose. The main reason for booster dose refusal is the belief that two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are sufficient to confer disease protection. Believing vaccination to be one of the most effective measures in COVID-19 prevention and being doctors by profession were the chief predictors of booster dose acceptance among HCWs.

Conclusion

While the uptake of the primary COVID-19 vaccination series was commendable among Indian HCWs, booster dose was taken only by a minority of them.

Changes in Local and Systemic Adverse Effects following Primary and Booster Immunisation against COVID-19 in an Observational Cohort of Dutch Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®)

In healthcare workers (HCWs) and in the general population, fear of adverse effects is among the main reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We present data on self-reported adverse effects from a large cohort of HCWs who underwent primary (N = 470) and booster (N = 990) mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We described general patterns in, and predictors of self-reported adverse effect profiles. Adverse effects following immunisation (AEFI) were reported more often after the second dose of primary immunisation than after the first dose, but there was no further increase in adverse effects following the booster round. Self-reported severity of systemic adverse effects was less following booster immunisation. Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a significant predictor of AEFI following primary immunisation, but was no longer a predictor after booster vaccination. Compared to other studies reporting specifically on adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in healthcare workers, we have a relatively large cohort size, and are the first to compare adverse effects between different rounds of vaccination. Compared to studies in the general population, we have a considerably homogenous population. Insights in AEFI following primary and booster vaccinations may help in addressing vaccine hesitancy, both in HCWs and in the general population.

Examining the Impact of the COVID-19 Vaccine on Smokers and Diabetic Individuals: Unveiling the Efficacy and Unraveling Side Effects in Al Jouf Region, KSA

BACKGROUND

The assessment of the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine is crucial to inform individuals about the potential risks and benefits of vaccination and to provide appropriate medical care if necessary. The study aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on smokers and diabetic individuals and to investigate the occurrence of any side effects in the subpopulation of the Al Jouf region, KSA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire had three main sections: the first covered basic information including gender, age, general health status, place, socio-economic position, nationality, smoking, and diabetes. Section 2 included the COVID-19 vaccination status and side effects, and the third section dealt with the dental history. Informed consent was obtained from the recruited individuals. Participants completed a Google self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty participants responded to the survey forms. Similarly, for diabetics versus non-diabetics, there was no statistically significant difference in the type of vaccine received (chi-square value = 3.125, p-value = 0.682). For smokers versus non-smokers, the chi-square test showed a non-significant difference in side effects (chi-square = 2.56, p-value = 0.109), indicating that there was no significant difference in the side effects experienced by smokers and non-smokers. For diabetics versus non-diabetics, the chi-square test showed a non-significant difference in side effects (chi-square = 0.34, p-value = 0.560), indicating that there was no significant difference in the side effects experienced by diabetics and non-diabetics.

CONCLUSION

Smokers and diabetics had higher harmful effects than non-smokers and non-diabetics. These findings need larger, robust trials to support treatment decision-making.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine confidence among primary care providers in Kazakhstan, March-April 2021

Introduction

Vaccination is a critical public health intervention, and vaccine hesitancy is a major threat. Globally, confidence in COVID-19 vaccines has been low, and rates of routine immunizations decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because healthcare providers are a trusted source of information on vaccination in Kazakhstan, it was vital to understand their knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to both routine and COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

From March to April 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional study among the healthcare providers responsible for vaccination in 54 primary care facilities in three cities in Kazakhstan. All consenting providers anonymously completed structured online questionnaires at their place of work. A provider was classified as having COVID-19 vaccine confidence if they planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine, believed that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect their community and either believed the vaccine was important to protect themselves or believed that getting a vaccine was safer than getting COVID-19. Statistical analysis included chi-square, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and Poisson regression.

Results

Of 1,461 providers, 30% had COVID-19 vaccine confidence, 40% did not, and 30% would refuse vaccination. Participants were mostly female (92%) and ≤ 35 years old (57%). Additionally, 65% were nurses, 25% were family physicians, and 10% were pediatricians. Adequate KAP for routine vaccines was low (22, 17, and 32%, respectively). Adequate knowledge was highest among pediatricians (42%) and family physicians (28%) and lowest among nurses (17%). Misconceptions about vaccines were high; 54% believed that influenza vaccines cause flu, and 57% believed that there is a scientifically proven association between vaccination and autism and multiple sclerosis. About half (45%) of the practitioners felt confident answering patient vaccine-related concerns. In adjusted models, COVID-19 vaccine confidence was positively associated with adequate knowledge of vaccines (prevalence ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.4) and adequate attitudes related to routine vaccines (3.1, 2.7-3.6).

Conclusion

Our study uncovers critical areas for interventions to improve KAP related to routine immunizations and COVID-19 vaccine confidence among providers in Kazakhstan. The complex relationship between KAP of routine vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine confidence underscores the importance of addressing vaccine hesitancy more broadly and not focusing solely on COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers and Attitude Changes During the Pandemic

Objective

Many healthcare workers (HCWs) hesitated or refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. The attitudes of HCWs toward vaccines have an impact on society and patients. In this study, we aimed to investigate the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and refusal among HCWs during the COVID pandemic.

Materials and Methods

We planned a two-step descriptive survey study. In the first step, we surveyed the unvaccinated HCWs in our hospital face-to-face after the first vaccination program. After eight months, we conducted another survey with the unvaccinated HCWs over the phone. We investigated the changes in their attitudes between the two surveys and the relationship of vaccine hesitation with their occupation and COVID-19 history.

Results

After the first vaccine program, 325 (21.2%) HCWs out of 1532 did not get vaccinated in our hospital. We found that there was a significant relationship between vaccine hesitancy and occupation. In our study, the group of "non-HCWs" had the highest vaccine hesitancy rate at the beginning. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy were breastfeeding and pregnancy (29.5%) and side effects, especially allergic reactions (18.0%). After eight months, in the second survey, vaccine hesitancy dropped to 5.6%. We found that 80.1% of the HCWs who stated they were planning to get vaccinated in the first survey were vaccinated, and 62.4% of those who were not planning it were vaccinated. In the second survey, 1.8% of HCWs were still planning the vaccination, but 3.8% of HCWs refused the COVID-19 vaccine. Not believing in the efficacy of the vaccine in the first survey was associated with vaccine refusal in the second survey (p=0.001).

Conclusion

The overall rate of vaccine refusal was low among HCWs. Nevertheless, vaccine refusal among HCWs having more information about the vaccine and disease than the community may be related to cultural, psychological, and political reasons other than efficacy and safety. Future studies on the cultural, psychological, and political reasons for vaccine refusal will contribute to understanding vaccine refusal and increasing vaccine acceptance.

Determinants for COVID-19 vaccination intention in Mexico

This investigation aims to determine the predictors that have the most significant influence over COVID-19 vaccination intention for the population of 18 years or above in Mexico. This will be done through a comprehensive theoretical model comprising: the theory of planned behaviour, the health belief model, and the model of goal-directed behaviour. An exploratory, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach was carried out. The structured questionnaire was applied to 1085 adults in the first trimester of 2021 through Google Forms in social media groups. The data analysis was carried out through partial least square structural equation modelling. Positive anticipated emotions, desire, subjective norms, attitude, and perceived behavioural control were the most significant predictors of intention. The model that combines the theoretical perspectives explains mostly the vaccination intention. The study can be a valuable theoretical perspective for understanding similar behavioural intentions related to health risks. The results are also valuable for public health decision-makers to design strategies that promote vaccination.

Anti-Vaccination Attitude and Vaccination Intentions Against Covid-19: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Investigating the Role of Media Consumption

Objective

The present study explores, retrospectively, the link between anti-vaccination attitude and vaccination intentions and extends this relationship to the effect of media consumption style on attitude.

Method

Generalized linear mixed-models were used to estimate vaccination intentions (related to each of the four available vaccines at the time of the survey) relying on anti-vaccination attitude measured using the Italian translation of the Vaccination Attitude Examination (VAX) scale. Multiple linear regression was used to estimate which media type and which consumption frequency were responsible for variation in the anti-vaccination attitude.

Results

Greater anti-vaccination attitude led to lower vaccination intention (b=-8.33, p<.0001) confirming the attitude-intention link. Crucially, consuming vaccination related information via printed press weekly (b=-0.74, p=.0001) or daily (b=-0.96, p<.0001) were the only protective factors against developing anti-vaccination attitudes. On the other hand, discussing vaccination with the family physician weekly (b=0.66, p=.002) or even daily (b=0.52, p=.026), and actively looking for vaccination related information on specialized websites and blogs every day (b=0.64, t=2.78, p=.006) were risk factors related to increased anti-vaccination attitude. No effects of social media on anti-vaccination attitude were found.

Conclusions

The results confirm that vaccination intentions can be linked to the underlying anti-vaccination attitude. Moreover, our results suggest that the web and the blog sphere, but not social media, are the most anti-vaccination fuelling media and that health practitioners engage with the most vaccination-hesitant individuals. Further interventions could leverage these insights to tackle the vaccination hesitancy issue.

Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccination and Associated Factors Among Health Care Providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

The COVID-19 vaccine is intended to provide acquired immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As a result, 12 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccination have been given globally as of August 1, 2022. Due to occupational exposure, health professionals obtained priority for COVID-19 vaccination. However, despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccines in countries, there is a discrepancy in the uptake of vaccine among different populations including Health-Care Providers.

Objective

Assessments of the factors associated with uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among health-care providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2022.

Methods

From June 10 to July 10, 2022, a facility-based cross-sectional study was carried out in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, involving 473 health-care professionals, used descriptive statistics to summarize the participant's characteristics, and multivariable logistic regression to analyze factors affecting COVID-19 vaccination uptake. P-value <0.05 was used to determine the level of significance.

Results

The response rate of the participants was 94.2%. The uptake rate of COVID-19 vaccine among health-care providers was 359 (75.8%). Vaccine uptake was positively associated with higher perceived concerns regarding COVID-19 [AOR = 7.45, (4.041-13.754)], higher monthly income, [AOR: 2.623 (1.398 -4.923)] compared those who earned lower, being married [AOR: 2.114, (1.068-4.181)] and being advanced age (36-45) years old [AOR =0.486 (0.258-0.916)] compared to 18-26 years old. However, being female professional reduced the odds of vaccine uptake [AOR = 0.486 (CI; 0.258-0.916)] in contrast of their counterpart.

Conclusion

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among health professionals is relatively higher than in earlier reports. However, this was not yet sufficient for the level required to achieve herd immunity. Hence, the Ministry of health should work in collaboration to address concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVI D-19 vaccine to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Moreover, Health professionals, social media, regular media outlet should strengthen health education on concerns of covid-19 infection.

Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from facility surveys across six countries

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier in mitigating the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The willingness of health care workers (HCWs) to be vaccinated, and, in turn, recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for their patient population is an important strategy. This study aims to understand the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy among facility-based health care workers (HCWs) in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted nationally representative phone-based rapid-cycle surveys across facilities in six LMICs to better understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We gathered data on vaccine uptake among facility managers, their perceptions of vaccine uptake and hesitancy among the HCWs operating in their facilities, and their perception of vaccine hesitancy among the patient population served by the facility.

RESULTS

1,148 unique public health facilities participated in the study, with vaccines being almost universally offered to facility-based respondents across five out of six countries. Among facility respondents who have been offered the vaccine, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents had already been vaccinated at the time of data collection. Vaccine uptake among other HCWs at the facility was similarly high. Over 90% of facilities in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, and Nigeria reported that all or most staff had already received the COVID-19 vaccine when the survey was conducted. Concerns about side effects predominantly drive vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the patient population.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the opportunity to get vaccinated in participating public facilities is almost universal. We find vaccine hesitancy among facility-based HCWs, as reported by respondents, to be very low. This suggests that a potentially effective effort to increase vaccine uptake equitably would be to channel promotional activities through health facilities and HCWs.However, reasons for hesitancy, even if limited, are far from uniform across countries, highlighting the need for audience-specific messaging.

Nationwide Survey on Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among Health Care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece: Determinants, Barriers and Peculiarities

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) of health care workers (HCWs) is critical in protecting patients' and HCWs' health. Our objective was to examine HCW SIV coverage and related determinants.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among HCWs during the first half of 2021. The questionnaire (online or paper-based) included knowledge, attitude and practice questions regarding SIV, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination.

RESULTS

Out of 6500 questionnaires administered, 2592 were completed (response rate: 39.9%). SIV coverage reached 69.4% (95% CI: 67.6-71.2%) based on self-reported vaccine uptake. Nurses and administrative staff were found to be more skeptical and have lower vaccine acceptance in comparison with physicians (aOR = 0.66 and aQR = 0.59, respectively). Other SIV hesitancy risk factors included working in secondary health care (aOR = 0.59) and working in northern Greece (aQR = 0.66). Determinants for SIV acceptance included being or living with high-risk people due to medical history (aOR = 1.84 and aOR = 1.46, respectively), positive attitudes towards routine vaccinations (aOR: 1.86), knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines (aOR = 1.53) and COVID-19 vaccine uptake (aOR = 3.45). The primary reason for SIV refusal was low risk perception (58.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

SIV coverage (2020/2021) was relatively high, but remained far from formal recommendations. Specific occupational groups were skeptical and low-risk perception was the main reason for vaccine refusal. Targeted policies should be developed and enforced.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and burnout in nursing home staff in South France during the COVID-19 pandemic

The high mortality rate in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic may be linked to psychological disorders in staff. Hence, we assessed the prevalence and associated factors of probable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and burnout of nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional study including 66 randomly selected nursing homes in southern France. 537 of the contacted 3 821 nursing home workers (14.0%) responded between April and October 2021. We collected information on center organization, severity of COVID-19 exposure, and socio-demographic information in an online survey. The prevalence of probable PTSD (PCL-5), anxiety and depressive disorders (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and the sub-scores of burnout syndrome (Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel) were assessed. Probable PTSD was reported in 115/537 responders (21.4% (95% CI [18.0%-24.9%])). After adjustment, low-level exposure to COVID-19 in nursing home residents (AOR, 0.5; 95% CI [0.3-0.9]), fear of managing COVID-19 residents (AOR, 3.5; 95% CI [1.9-6.4]), conflicts with residents (AOR, 2.3; 95% CI, [1.2-4.4]), conflicts with colleagues (AOR, 3.6; 95% CI [1.7-8.6]), cancellation of leave (AOR, 4.8; 95% CI [2.0-11.7]) and temporary worker employment (AOR, 3.4; 95% CI [1.7-6.9]) were associated with higher prevalence of probable PTSD. The prevalence of probable anxiety and depression were 28.8% (95% CI [24.9%-32.7%]) and 10.4% (95% CI [7.8%-13.1%]), respectively. Psychological disorders were observed in nearly one third of nursing home workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, continuous surveys and preventive measures are needed in this particularly at-risk population.

Hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine among health care practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

 The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major public health crisis worldwide. In less than 12 months since the World Health Organization declared the outbreak, several different COVID-19 vaccines have been approved and deployed mostly in developed countries since January 2021. However, hesitancy to accept the newly developed vaccines is a well-known public health challenge that needs to be addressed. The aim of this study was to measure willingness and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines among health care practitioners' (HCPs) in Saudi Arabia.   Methods: A cross-sectional study using an online self-reported survey was conducted among HCPs in Saudi Arabia between April 4th to April 25th 2021 using snowball sampling. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify the possible factors affecting HCPs' willingness and hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccines.   Results: Out of 776 participants who started the survey, 505 (65%) completed it and were included in the results. Among all HCPs, 47 (9.3%) either said "no" to receive the vaccine [20 (4%)] or were hesitant to receive it [27 (5.3%)]. Of the total number of the HCPs, 376 (74.5%) already received the COVID-19 vaccine, and 48 (9.50%) were registered to receive it. The main reason of agreement to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was "wanting to protect self and others from getting the infection" (24%).   Conclusion: Our findings have shown that hesitancy toward receiving COVID-19 vaccines among HCPs in Saudi Arabia is limited and therefore may not be a serious issue. The outcomes of this study may help to understand factors that lead to vaccine hesitancy in Saudi Arabia and help public health authorities to design targeted health education interventions aiming to increase uptake of these vaccines.

COVID-19 Booster Doses: A Multi-Center Study Reflecting Healthcare Providers' Perceptions

(1) Background: During 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was threatening healthcare services and workers, and acquiring immunity was an option to stop or limit the burden of this pandemic. Herd immunity was a top priority worldwide as the virus was spreading rapidly. It was estimated that 67% of the total global population should be immunized against COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. The aim of the current study is to investigate different perceptions of healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt using an online survey in an attempt to evaluate their awareness and concerns regarding new variants and booster doses. (2) Methods: This study conducted a survey on healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt about their perception and concerns on the COVID-19 vaccines. (3) Results: The study found that out of 389 healthcare workers 46.1% of the physicians were not willing to take the booster doses (p = 0.004). Physicians also did not support taking the COVID-19 vaccine as an annual vaccine (p = 0.04). Furthermore, to assess the association between the type of vaccine taken with the willingness of taking a booster vaccine, healthcare workers beliefs on vaccine effectiveness (p = 0.001), suspension or contact with patients (p = 0.000), and infection after COVID-19 vaccination (p = 0.016) were significant. (4) Conclusion: Knowledge about vaccine accreditation and regulation should be dispersed more widely to ensure that the population has a positive perception on vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Determinants of COVID-19 immunisation uptake in a country with high mortality and a low vaccination rate

BACKGROUND

Research concerned with attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in upper middle-income countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) is scarce. Currently, B&H has the lowest number of fully vaccinated adults in Europe, and the highest cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths and SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. The aim of our study was to examine the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination status in B&H.

METHODS

An online survey among 1304 B&H adults was conducted in October 2021 evaluating vaccine acceptance, together with socio-demographic variables, attitudes and beliefs related to COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

The results from a binary logistic regression indicate that those who believed that the COVID-19 vaccine was effective were 45 times more likely to be vaccinated compared to those who did not. We also show that those who had received childhood immunisations were 41 times more likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to those who had never been previously immunised. Other significant factors were related to respondents' trust in government institutions and healthcare policymakers as well as trust in public healthcare workers.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that future vaccination campaigns should be aimed at educating the public regarding the importance and safety of vaccines, together with strengthening trust in the public health system.

Evaluation of Nurses' Vaccine Hesitancy, Psychological Resilience, and Anxiety Levels During COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the vaccine hesitancy, psychological resilience, and anxiety levels of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted with 676 nurses working at the survey time. Sociodemographic features, the status of hesitancy against the COVID-19 vaccine, the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale, and the Brief Resilience Scale were used in the questionnaire form to collect the data.

RESULTS

Most participants (68.6%; n=464) stated they were hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. A sig- nificantly higher rate of hesitancy was detected in the age group of 20-39 years, those who did not have COVID-19 vaccine, and those who did not think the COVID-19 vaccine is protective (P < .05). It was determined that 6.8% (n=46) of the nurses had COVID-19 anxiety. A significantly higher rate of anxiety was detected in the age group of 40 years and older, those working in the emergency department, and those working in the COVID-19 unit during the pandemic period (P < .05). The median Brief Resilience Scale score of nurses is 19(6). A negative, weak, and significant relationship was found between the Brief Resilience Scale and Coronavirus Anxiety Scale scores (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

During the pandemic, higher rates of anxiety were detected in healthcare personnel and those working in COVID-19 units. It was also found that as the level of anxiety increased, the level of psychological resilience decreased. To reduce the anxiety level and strengthen the psychological resilience of nurses, the cornerstones of the health system, fast, effective, and curative interventions should be made.

Acceptance, hesitancy and refusal towards COVID-19 vaccination

Problem

The determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal remain poorly understood. We assessed the general population of Pune after visiting tertiary care hospital for their willingness to accept the vaccine and the reason for their hesitancy and refusal.

Methodology

A six-month descriptive cross-sectional study with 386 community members over the age of 18 who visited the Tertiary Hospital OPD was conducted. The vaccine acceptance and hesitancy was assessed using a self designed detailed questionnaire with a one-time face-to-face interview.

Results

Acceptance for vaccine was observed in 235 (60.8%) participants, while 151 (39.2%) hesitated and refused. Participants with lower education (P < 0.00001), no employment did not readily accept the vaccine (P < 0.00001). Pregnant, breast-feeding women (21.8%) hesitated vaccine because of lack of evidence regarding vaccine safety. Participants (73.6%) were readily accepting (third dose) booster dose of vaccine when available. The reason for vaccine hesitance was the concern about side effects (58.2%) and reason for acceptance was to get immunity against COVID-19 (76.1%). Vaccine information source appears to be an influential aspect, as participants who obtained vaccination information from healthcare providers had no concerns regarding vaccination.

Conclusion

The study has found a link between average education level, unemployment and vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Factors influencing vaccine hesitancy include lack of vaccine information, vaccine side effects, and misinformation spread via social media. Clinical pharmacists can play an important role in boosting up vaccine acceptance by providing appropriate information in community.

Willingness of Healthcare Workers to Recommend or Receive a Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dose: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Background: The availability of COVID-19 vaccines worldwide necessitates measuring healthcare workers’ (HCWs’) willingness to recommend or receive these vaccines. Therefore, we conducted a local study in Jordan to assess HCWs’ willingness to recommend or receive a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and the predictors of such a decision. A cross-sectional study investigated Jordanian HCWs’ willingness regarding a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine using a self-administered online questionnaire through WhatsApp, a mobile phone application. A total of 300 HCWs participated in the current study. Of these HCWs, 65.3% were physicians, 25.3% were nurses, and 9.3% were pharmacists. HCWs’ overall willingness regarding a third vaccine dose was 68.4% (49.4% certainly and 19.0% probably), whereas the overall willingness of HCWs to recommend a third dose to their patients was 73.3% (49.0% certainly and 24.3% probably). Males had significantly higher willingness than females (82.1% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.05). Physicians reported more willingness than nurses and pharmacists. HCWs’ willingness was not significantly affected by direct contact with a patient infected with COVID-19 or by a personal history of COVID-19 infection. Only 31% of HCWs were certainly willing to recommend the vaccine to their patients with chronic diseases, and only 28% of the participants were certainly willing to recommend it to people aged 65 or older. HCWs’ willingness to receive a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is limited in Jordan. This has affected their certainty in recommending this vaccine to their patients or people older than 60. Decision-makers and health-promotion programs in Jordan should focus on addressing this public health problem.

Multi-Perspective Views and Hesitancy toward COVID-19 Vaccines: A Mixed Method Study

The worldwide uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was suboptimal throughout the pandemic; vaccine hesitancy played a principle role in low vaccine acceptance both globally and in Armenia. In order to understand the factors behind the slow vaccine uptake in Armenia, we aimed to explore the prevailing perceptions and experiences of healthcare providers and the general public related to COVID-19 vaccines. The study applied a convergent parallel mixed-methods study design (QUAL-quant) through in-depth interviews (IDI) and a telephone survey. We completed 34 IDIs with different physician and beneficiary groups and a telephone survey with 355 primary healthcare (PHC) providers. The IDIs found that physicians held variable views on the need for COVID-19 vaccination which, combined with mixed messaging in the media landscape, fueled the public’s vaccine hesitancy. The survey results were mostly consistent with the qualitative findings as 54% of physicians hypothesized that COVID-19 vaccines were rushed without appropriate testing and 42% were concerned about the safety of those vaccines. Strategies to improve vaccination rates must target the main drivers of hesitancy, such as physicians’ poor knowledge of specific vaccines and spiraling misconceptions about them. Meanwhile, timely educational campaigns with targeted messaging for the general public should address misinformation, promote vaccine acceptance, and empower their capacity to make decisions about their health.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 Vaccine Hesitancy

Early in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, before coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines were authorized, surveys began tracking public acceptance of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine. As vaccines became more widely available, the focus shifted from evaluating premeditative thoughts about COVID-19 vaccines to observing behaviors, measuring uptake, and characterizing factors associated with acceptance. A wealth of peer-reviewed literature examining the complexities of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance has emerged, but our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is constantly evolving. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with an emphasis on pediatric vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

Lebanon endured its worst economic and financial crisis in 2020-2021. To minimize the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to improve the overall COVID-19 vaccination rate. Given that vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs) affects the general population's decision to be vaccinated, our study assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Lebanon HCWs and identified barriers, demographic differences, and the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between January and May 2021 among HCWs across nine hospitals, the Orders of Physicians, Nurses, and Pharmacists in Lebanon. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and univariate and multivariable to identify their predictors.

RESULTS

Among 879 participants, 762 (86.8%) were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, 52 (5.9%) refused, and 64 (7.3%) were undecided. Males (226/254; 88.9%) and those ≥ 55 years (95/100; 95%) had the highest rates of acceptance. Of the 113 who were not willing to receive the vaccine, 54.9% reported that the vaccine was not studied well enough. Participants with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not know if they had a previous infection (p = 0.002) were less likely to accept the vaccine compared to those with no previous infection. The most trusted COVID-19 sources of information were WHO (69.3%) and healthcare providers (68%).

CONCLUSION

Lebanese HCWs had a relatively high acceptance rate for COVID-19 vaccination compared to other countries. Our findings are important in informing the Lebanese health care authorities to establish programs and interventions to improve vaccine uptake among HCWs and the general population.

Qualitative Insights into Vaccine Uptake of Nursing Staff in Long-Term Care Facilities in Finland

Vaccine hesitancy and refusal have undermined COVID-19 vaccination efforts of nursing staff. This study aimed to identify behavioral factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among unvaccinated nursing staff in long-term care facilities (LTCF) in Finland. Methodology: The study was based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were collected through qualitative in-depth interviews among nursing staff and managers of LTCFs. The analysis was based on thematic analysis. We identified seven behavioral domains, with several themes, that reduced the staff's intention to get vaccinated: knowledge (information overload, inability to identify trustworthy information sources, lack of vaccine-specific and understandable scientific information), beliefs about consequences (incorrect perceptions about the vaccine effectiveness, and lack of trust in the safety of the vaccine), social influences (influence of family and friends), reinforcement (limited abilities of the management to encourage vaccination), beliefs about capabilities (pregnancy or desire to get pregnant), psychological factors (coping with changing opinion), and emotions (confusion, suspicion, disappointment, and fatigue). We also identified three behavioral domains that encouraged vaccine uptake: social influences (trust in health authorities), environmental context and resources (vaccination logistics), and work and professional role (professional pride). The study findings can help authorities to develop tailored vaccine promotion strategies for healthcare workers in LTCFs.

Psychological mechanisms and interventions directed at vaccination attitudes

Attitudes about vaccination impact not only the individual but also society. Therefore, understanding the underlying psychological processes of those who disagree with vaccination is critical for creating compassion through understanding and change through promoting autonomy. The current review aimed to fill a gap in the literature, outlining the state of the recent research on vaccination attitudes, specifically on the underlying mechanisms driving anti-vaccination movements and individuals' thoughts and behaviors. In addition, we aimed to evaluate current research on the effectiveness of interventions targeting these mechanisms. Overall, results indicated that those declining vaccines had beliefs related to distrust in the scientific community and pharmaceutical companies and moral preferences for purity and liberty. In addition, our review identified the potential for utilizing motivational interviewing techniques as an intervention. This literature review provides a platform for further research and enhances the current understanding of vaccination attitudes.

COVID-19 Vaccination Attitude and Behavior among Nurses at a West Texas Regional Hospital

Vaccinations against COVID-19 infection have become a contentious issue in the United States. Multiple segments of society, including healthcare workers, have expressed concerns regarding the need for vaccination and the safety of current vaccines. Many hospital-based nurses have helped care for patients with severe COVID-19 infections. An anonymous online survey was sent to the nursing staff at University Medical Center in Lubbock, TX, USA, through a hospital-based email system to determine vaccination status and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and other routine vaccines. Multivariable regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with vaccination. A total of 251 nurses responded to this survey; 211 nurses (83.7%) had received the vaccine. Almost all nurses (242, 96%) had received all childhood vaccinations, and 231 (91.7%) had received an influenza vaccination in the prior year. A minority of nurses (75, 29.8%) supported mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. The reasons for declining vaccination included the possibility that diet and alternative medications provided better protection against COVID-19. This survey demonstrates that over 80% of nurses working in a hospital managing very sick patients with COVID-19 infection had been vaccinated. However, nurses who did not take the annual influenza vaccine and did not consider other protective measures useful (such as mask-wearing) were significantly less likely to vaccinate. Nurses can provide an important resource for conversations with the public and patients about vaccine initiatives.

Vaccination Coverage and Associated Factors of COVID-19 Uptake in Adult Primary Health Care Users in Greece

In our study, attitudes and perceptions of adult primary health care users regarding COVID-19 vaccination were evaluated. A single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted during a 1-year period (March 2021-March 2022) in a rural area in Crete, Greece. A sample of 626 self-reported questionnaires was collected at the end of the study period. Overall, 78% of respondents stated that they had received the COVID-19 vaccine. The reasons behind vaccine uptake were mainly personal beliefs and the desire to avoid professional constraints. The presence of diabetes type 2, fear of infection, and high perceived efficacy of vaccine previous flu vaccination, living with vulnerable persons, and the influence of scientific information were all significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. On the contrary, unwillingness and/or uncertainty to be vaccinated was associated with fear of vaccine side effects, information insufficiency, media/internet information, older age, the presence of inflammatory arthritis, previous COVID-19 infection, the belief that infection confers much greater immunity than the vaccine, and attitudes against vaccinations in general were predictors against COVID-19 vaccination. In conclusion, taking into account all of the above predictors and particularly those regarding safety and vaccine effectiveness may guide future strategies appropriately tailored to specific characteristics and needs of different geographic populations.

Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Associated Factors among Chronic Disease Patients in a Resource Limited Setting in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affects patients with chronic diseases. Thus, chronic disease patients are among the first high-risk population groups to get vaccinated. This might be challenged by vaccine hesitancy as it is one of the top ten global health issues for 2019. Furthermore, vaccination myths and conspiracy theories have been proliferating, and the developing world can readily embrace them, which might cause vaccine hesitancy. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding chronic illness patient’s willingness to be vaccinated. As a result, the aim of this study is to determine the magnitude of vaccine hesitancy and associated factors among chronic disease patients in Ethiopia. Method. An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted among adult ambulatory chronic disease patients who were selected using stratified sampling technique from June 1 to August 1, 2021. Data were collected through a face-to-face interviewer-administered questionnaire. Vaccine hesitancy was measured based on a questionnaire which was adapted from the reviewed literature. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors, and variables with $p<0.05$ were considered statistically significant. Result. A total of 422 respondents participated in the survey; the response rate was 99.7%. The mean age of the participants was 45 years  $\pm$  16.95 and 228 (54%) of them were male. Almost half of the respondents (49.5%) were hesitant toward the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants who were male (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.35), having good knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR = 1.60 95% CI: 1.06, 2.41) and having a comorbidity (AOR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.73, 6.56), were factors associated with the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusion. The level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was high. The COVID-19 vaccine’s acceptability was influenced by being a man, having knowledge about the vaccine and having comorbidities. Furthermore, the most prevalent reason for refusing to take the vaccination is a fear that it may not be safe. As a result, public awareness campaigns should concentrate on delivering more information about the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy. Furthermore, it is critical to disseminate accurate information, particularly among women, and to educate people about the vaccine.

What impact does the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination have on physicians as vaccine providers? A cross sectional study from the German outpatient sector

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination is recognized as a key component in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians' attitudes toward vaccination are known to play a defining role in the management and dissemination of medical advice to patients. In Germany, outpatient practitioners are predominantly responsible for the dissemination of vaccines.

METHOD

Using a cross-sectional online survey, 932 outpatient general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in Germany were asked in fall, 2021, about their attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination and - among others - their communication in vaccine discussions, their assessment of vaccine safety, and reporting of suspected adverse events. Physicians were divided into two groups along their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, multivariate linear regression models were constructed to assess differences in communication strategies.

RESULTS

92 % of physicians had a positive or very positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination. Own vaccination status, practice-based vaccination delivery, and estimated vaccination coverage among patients were significantly associated with the attitude toward vaccination. Confidence in vaccine safety was significantly lower among physicians with negative attitudes. There were no differences between the two groups in self-assessment of the ability to detect suspected adverse events, but there were differences in the observing and reporting of adverse events. For the linear regression models, we found that a more negative attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with increased acceptance of patient refusal of COVID-19 vaccination and empathic behavior for patient concerns. In contrast, willingness to engage in a detailed persuasion consultation was significantly lower. Pediatricians showed significantly higher empathy for patient-side concerns compared to general practitioners, whereas gynecologists showed less empathy than general practitioners.

DISCUSSION

The physician's attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination influences the physician's practices as a vaccine provider. However, when providing medical advice and healthcare, the physician should focus on the actual needs of the patient.

Acceptability rate and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Teaching Hospital, Amaku-Awka, Nigeria

Background

Healthcare workers were at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic. The acceptability and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers was an important strategy in halting the spread of the virus as well as the antecedent implications on global health and the world economy.

Objectives

This study aims to determine the acceptability rate and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of frontline healthcare workers in Awka, Nigeria.

Design

This is an analytical cross-sectional study.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from February 2022 to April 2022 to obtain the data for this study. One hundred healthcare workers were studied. Acceptability rate and barriers to uptake of COVID-19 vaccination were outcome measures.

Results

The COVID-19 vaccination rate was 45.0% among healthcare workers in study area of Awka metropolis. Ages 30-39 years had the highest acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination, 19 (47.5%; p = 0.262) with a more female preponderance of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance compared to males [26 (41.3%) vs 16 (42.2%), p = 0.721]. The place of residence of respondents (urban vs rural) and their marital status (married vs single) appeared not to influence the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination [(38 (42.2%) vs 3 (33.3%); p = 0.667; 25 (36.8% vs 17 (54.8%); p = 0.433)]. Years of work experience (<10 years vs >10 years) significantly affected COVID-19 vaccine acceptance [27 (45.8%) vs 12 (52.2%); p = 0.029]. Educational status and monthly income appeared not to influence vaccine uptake (p > 0.05, for both). A significant number of respondents were not sure why they should or should not take the COVID-19 vaccine [49 (92.5%) vs 35 (83.3%); p = 0.001].

Conclusion

The COVID-19 vaccination rate is still poor among healthcare workers in Awka metropolis. The majority of respondents do not know why they should or should not take COVID-19 vaccine. We therefore recommend robust awareness campaigns that will explain in clear terms the essence and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in order to improve vaccine acceptance.

Long-term adverse events of three COVID-19 vaccines as reported by vaccinated physicians and dentists, a study from Jordan and Saudi Arabia

Assessment of safety of COVID-19 vaccines is an ongoing process. This study aims to explore long-term adverse events reported by physicians and dentists who received at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses. A group of physicians and dentists were invited to complete a validated questionnaire that was composed of items on: socio-demographics, medical history, administered vaccines, and long-term adverse events (LTAE). Data of a total of 498 practitioners were included. Age ranged from 22 to 71 years (mean age= 35.75 ± 11.74) with a female majority (N = 348, 69.9%). The most frequently administered vaccines were Pfizer-BioNtech, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines. A total of 80 (16.0%) participants reported LTAEs which were mainly fatigue, menstrual disturbances, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache (N = 32, 15, 8, 6, 4, and 4, respectively). There was no statistically significant association between LTAEs and: age, gender, or medical history (P > .05). The collective symptoms of fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache were significantly associated with Sinopharm vaccine (P = .04). This was further confirmed by general linear multivariate model analysis. Less than 20% of COVID-19 vaccine recipients may complain of LTAEs that are mostly fatigue-related. It seems that factors such as age, gender, and medical status play a negligible role in development of these AEs. On the other hand, Sinopharm vaccine showed the highest significant association with these AEs followed by AstraZeneca vaccine.