Evaluating and Deploying Covid-19 Vaccines - The Importance of Transparency, Scientific Integrity, and Public Trust

Vaccine Confidence as Critical to Pandemic Preparedness and Response

Vaccine confidence is a belief that vaccines work, are safe, and are part of a trustworthy medical system. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of the public's confidence in vaccines and the vaccine enterprise, limiting the public health impact of vaccination. In this review, we examine the critical nature of vaccine confidence to pandemic preparedness and response.

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations ('claims') detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms 'physical distancing' and 'social distancing'. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

'The tabloid test': a qualitative interview study on the function and purpose of termination of pregnancy review committees in Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND

Termination of pregnancy (TOP) is not an uncommon procedure. Availability varies greatly between jurisdictions; however, additional institutional processes beyond legislation can also impact care and service delivery. This study serves to examine the role institutional processes can play in the delivery of TOP services, in a jurisdiction where TOP is lawful at all gestations (Victoria, Australia). As per the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, TOPs post-24 weeks require the approval of two medical practitioners. However, in Victoria, hospitals that offer post-24 week TOPs generally require these cases to additionally go before a termination review committee for assessment prior to the service being provided. These committees are not stipulated in legislation. Information about these committees and how they operate is scarce and there is minimal information available to the public.

METHODS

To trace the history, function, and decision-making processes of these committees, we conducted a qualitative interview study. We interviewed 27 healthcare professionals involved with these committees. We used purposive sampling to gain perspectives from a range of professions across 10 hospitals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, identifying details removed and inductive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Here, we report the three main functions of the committees as described by participants. The functions were to protect: (1) outward appearances; (2) inward functionality; and/or, (3) service users. Function (1) could mean protecting the hospital's reputation, with the "Herald Sun test"-whether the TOP would be acceptable to readers of the Herald Sun, a tabloid newspaper-used as a heuristic. Function (2) related to logistics within the hospital and protecting the psychological wellbeing and personal reputation of healthcare professionals. The final function (3) related to ensuring patients received a high standard of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary functions of these committees appear to be about protecting hospitals and clinicians within a context where these procedures are controversial and stigmatized. The results of this study provide further clarity on the processes involved in the provision of TOPs at later gestations from the perspectives of the healthcare professionals involved. Institutional processes beyond those required by legislation are put in place by hospitals. These findings highlight the additional challenges faced by patients and their providers when seeking TOP at later gestations.

Determinants of COVID Vaccination Willingness among Health and Non-Health Studies Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Students, as a relatively health-informed population group, may still have limitations in health literacy, which is a concern as students take increasing responsibility for their health and make independent health decisions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall attitudes towards COVID vaccination among university students and to investigate various factors contributing to vaccination willingness among health and non-health studies students. A total of 752 students from the University of Split were included in this cross-sectional study and completed a questionnaire that consisted of three sections: socio-demographic data, health status information, and information on vaccination against COVID-19. Results show that the majority of students of health and natural sciences were willing to be vaccinated, but the majority of students of social sciences were not (p < 0.001). Students who used credible sources of information had a more significant proportion of those willing to be vaccinated and the majority of students who used less credible sources (79%) or did not think about it (68.8%) were unwilling to be vaccinated (p < 0.001). Multiple binary logistic regression modeling shows that female gender, younger age, studying social sciences, negative opinion about the need to reintroduce lockdown and the effectiveness of epidemiological measures, and usage of less credible sources of information were the most important factors contributing to increased vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, improving health literacy and restoring trust in relevant institutions can be critical in health promotion and COVID-19 prevention.

Reasons for not getting COVID-19 vaccine in Ardabil, a Northwestern province in Iran: Based on an ecological approach

BACKGROUND

Understanding the reasons for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine can help to increase acceptability and tackle vaccine hesitancy and consequently reach high coverage for this new vaccine. Using an ecological approach, the reasons for not getting the vaccine in the Iranian population was investigated.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

This study was conducted from October to December 2021 on 426 participants who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine. The following subsets of questions were included in the questionnaire: intrapersonal level factors, interpersonal level factors, group and organization, and society and policy-making. Multivariable logistic regression was used, and the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for vaccine hesitancy (dependent variable) according to the reasons for not getting COVID vaccine scores (independent variable) using multivariable logistic regression in 3 different models, including Model 0: unadjusted, Model 1: adjusted for age, gender, and underlying disease, and Model 2: adjustment for age, gender, underlying disease, education, place of living, income, marital status, and employment.

RESULTS

A significant difference was found regarding gender between likely and not likely groups (P = 0.016). A significant association was observed between the vaccine hesitancy and interpersonal (unadjusted model: OR = 0.833 (CI: 0.738-0.942), P for trend = 0.003; model 1: OR = 0.820 (CI: 0.724-0.930), P for trend = 0.002; model 2: OR = 0.799 (CI: 0.703-0.909), P for trend = 0.001) and group and organization (unadjusted model: OR = 0.861 (CI: 0.783-0.948), P for trend = 0.002; model 1: OR = 0.864 (CI: 0.784-0.952, P for trend = 0.003; model 2:OR = 0.862 (CI: 0.781-0.951, P for trend = 0.003). There was no significant association between vaccine hesitancy and intrapersonal and society and policy-making (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that a high score of "interpersonal" and "group and organization" factors were associated with lower intention to COVID vaccine. Moreover, women had higher vaccination intentions than men.

Increasing Undergraduate Student Knowledge about Journal Peer Review Using Outside Reading and In-Class Discussion

Peer review is an important part of the scientific publishing process that serves as a key quality control step. Learning that scientific publications go through peer review builds scientific literacy and may increase trust in published findings. Though the publication and peer review process is an established part of the practice of communicating science, this topic is not commonly taught at the undergraduate level, even in classes that regularly require students to read primary literature or author manuscripts. Often, undergraduate course lessons on peer review focus on the practice of performing peer review on other students' writing rather than explaining how this process works for independent scientists publishing their novel work as primary literature articles. As a result, there is a need for more resources related to teaching about publication and peer review. This work presents a plan for out-of-class reading and an in-class lesson on peer review practices in biology. In this module, students learn the order of events in scientific publishing and consider the relationship between peer review and public trust in science by analyzing survey data. Students completing this activity reported knowledge gains related to scientific publishing and peer review and demonstrated their knowledge on an in-class assessment. Though this activity was developed for a biochemistry course, it may be implemented in various life sciences classes from introductory to advanced levels to improve student scientific literacy.

Make it or break it: On-time vaccination intent at the time of Covid-19

On-time effective vaccination is critical to curbing a pandemic, but this is often hampered by citizens' hesitancy to get quickly vaccinated. This research concentrates on the hypothesis that, besides traditional factors in the literature, vaccination success would hinge on two dimensions: a) addressing a broader set of risk perception factors than health-related issues only, and b) securing sufficient social and institutional trust at the time of vaccination campaign launch. We test this hypothesis regarding Covid-19 vaccination preferences in six European countries and at the early stage of the pandemic by April 2020. We find that addressing the two roadblock dimensions could further boost Covid-19 vaccination coverage by 22%. The study also offers three extra innovations. The first is that the traditional segmentation logic between vaccine "acceptors", "hesitants" and "refusers" is further justified by the fact that segments have different attitudes: refusers care less about health issues than they are worried about family tensions and finance (dimension 1 of our hypothesis). In contrast, hesitants are the battlefield for more transparency by media and government actions (dimension 2 of our hypothesis). The second added value is that we extend our hypothesis testing with a supervised non-parametric machine learning technique (Random Forests). Again, consistent with our hypothesis, this method picks up higher-order interaction between risk and trust variables that strongly predict on-time vaccination intent. We finally explicitly adjust survey responses to account for possible reporting bias. Among others, vaccine-reluctant citizens may under-report their limited will to get vaccinated.

Association between health and safety perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine and its uptake in Ghana

Background

Attitudes towards vaccines have affected COVID-19 vaccination programs in many countries. This study sought to evaluate the effects of general perceptions on the safety and health concerns and the confidence in COVID-19 vaccines on its uptake in Ghana.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between January and March 2021. The outcome variables for this study were "Taking mandatory COVID-19 vaccine" and "Taking voluntary COVID-19 vaccine". The data were subjected to both descriptive (frequency, percentages, and chi-square tests) and inferential (complementary log-log logistic regression) analyses.

Results

Out of 620 Ghanians who participated in the survey, about 80% of the participants believed that vaccines were good for one's health and 73% had confidence on COVID-19 vaccine safety; although 81% of the respondents were particularly concerned about the source of the vaccine. 79% and 71% of respondents indicated their willingness for mandatory and voluntary COVID-19 vaccination, respectively. In all operationalized regression models, Ghanaians who believed that vaccines are healthy (OR = 1.998, Cl = 1.345-2.968; OR = 1.652, Cl = 1.050-2.601) and those who had confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine safety (OR = 4.405, Cl = 3.136-6.188; OR = 8.340, Cl = 5.471-12.713) were more likely to take a mandatory or voluntary COVID-19 vaccine compared to those who thought and believed otherwise. Individual preferences and/or intentions towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake and uptake route (i.e., mandatory, voluntary) were influenced by multifaceted determinants: biosocial (age, marital status, education), socio-cultural (religion, source of vaccine as a concern), and location (geographical zone) factors.

Conclusion

To consolidate and possibly increase vaccine uptake in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana, health education and promotion programs should aim at creating awareness on the benefits of vaccine uptake while addressing the health and safety concerns on the potential side effects through evidence-based community messaging from credible sources. It is important to show specific commitment to transparency and reliable information to build public trust by decision-makers.

High Frequency of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Canadians Immunized for Influenza: A Cross-Sectional Survey

We assessed the frequency and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy before Canada's vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional vaccine hesitancy survey was completed by consecutive patients/family members/staff who received the influenza vaccine at McGill University affiliated hospitals. Based on the self-reported likelihood of receiving a future vaccine (scale 0-10), the following three groups were defined: non-hesitant (score 10), mildly hesitant (7.1-9.9), and significantly hesitant (0-7). Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were assessed with multivariate logistic regression analyses and binomial logistic regression machine learning modelling. The survey was completed by 1793 people. Thirty-seven percent of participants (n = 669) were hesitant (mildly: 315 (17.6%); significantly: 354 (19.7%)). Lower education levels, opposition and uncertainty about vaccines being mandatory, feelings of not receiving enough information about COVID-19 prevention, perceived social pressure to get a future vaccine, vaccine safety concerns, uncertainty regarding the vaccine risk-benefit ratio, and distrust towards pharmaceutical companies were factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine safety concerns and opposition to mandatory vaccinations were the strongest correlates of vaccine hesitancy in both the logistic regressions and the machine learning model. In conclusion, in this study, over a third of people immunized for influenza before the COVID-19 vaccine rollout expressed some degree of vaccine hesitancy. Effectively addressing COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns may enhance vaccine uptake.

Beliefs, barriers and hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine among Bangladeshi residents: Findings from a cross-sectional study

Background

COVID‐19 vaccination acceptance is important, and combating hesitancy which is generally based on the individuals’ beliefs and perceptions is essential in the present pandemic. This study assesses COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and associated factors, beliefs and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out among 492 Bangladeshi residents (76% male; mean age = 24.21 ± 4.91 years; age range = 18–50 years) prior to the nationwide mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign (September 28, 2021). A semi-structured e-questionnaire included three sections (demographic variables, beliefs around the vaccination, and perceived barriers regarding COVID-19 vaccination).

Results

More than a quarter of participants (26.42%) were hesitant, 70.33% reported to accept the vaccine, and 3.25% refused to be vaccinated. While (54%) believed that mass vaccination would be the most effective method to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding the side effects of the vaccine (58%), inadequate vaccine trials before human administration (43%), commercial profiteering (42%), and mistrust of the benefits of the vaccine (20%) were also reported. In addition, other barriers including a short supply of vaccines, unknown future adverse effects (55%), low confidence in the health system (51%), doubts regarding its effectiveness (50%) and safety (45%), and insufficient information regarding potential adverse effects (44.7%) were reported. In bivariate analysis, variables such as current political affiliation, previous vaccination history, and health status were significantly associated with the COVID-19 vaccine uptake variable (acceptance, hesitancy, refusal). Regression analysis showed that participants who identified with the opposing current political parties, and not having been vaccinated since the age of 18 years were significantly more likely to report vaccine hesitancy.

Conclusions

The current findings relating to COVID-19 vaccination demonstrate that government and policy makers need to take all necessary measures to ensure the effectiveness of the vaccination program among the Bangladeshi people.

Increasing face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Prior studies of universal masking have not measured face-mask compliance. We performed a quality improvement study to monitor and improve face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care center in West Haven, Connecticut.

PATIENTS

HCP including physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff.

METHODS

Face-mask compliance was measured through direct observations during a 4-week baseline period after universal masking was mandated. Frontline and management HCP completed semistructured interviews from which a multimodal intervention was developed. Direct observations were repeated during a 14-week period following implementation of the multimodal intervention. Differences between units were evaluated with χ2 testing using the Bonferroni correction. Face-mask compliance between baseline and intervention periods was compared using time-series regression.

RESULTS

Among 1,561 observations during the baseline period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 82.2% (range, 80.8%-84.4%). Semistructured interviews were performed with 16 HCP. Qualitative analysis informed the development of a multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership. Among 2,651 observations during the intervention period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 92.6% (range, 84.6%-97.9%). There was no difference in weekly face-mask compliance between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units. The multimodal intervention was associated with an increase in face-mask compliance (β = 0.023; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Face-mask compliance remained suboptimal among HCP despite a facility-wide mandate for universal masking. A multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership was effective in increasing face-mask compliance among HCP.

COVID-19 vaccination perceptions and attitudes among Egyptian medical students

Background:

This study aimed to assess perceptions and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines among medical students.

Methods:

A consecutive convenient sample of 2100 university students representing the student’s union network were included using an electronic self-administered questionnaire. About 12 items were used to assess attitudes and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Results:

A total of 2100 volunteers responded to the survey. All ages ranged from 18 to 25 years, 69% were females, and 57.3% were from urban residences. According to their willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, 49.7% accepted, 38.5% hesitated, and 11.8% refused vaccination. Out of 60 scales measuring their attitudes, a median total score of 46.0 (42.0–49.0) differed significantly in relation to genders, residence, and vaccine decision-making groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that participants who consented that COVID-19 mass vaccination could prevent the spread of infection in the community and stop the pandemic have 1.9 higher odds of accepting vaccination ( p = 0.003). Additionally, the participants who believed that the vaccine had no severe infection or side effects were 3.1 and 2.8 higher folds for vaccine acceptance, respectively ( p = 0.001). Moreover, participants who thought it was not too early for clinical trials were 4.3 times more likely to take the vaccine ( p = 0.001). Individuals who agreed that information about vaccine side effects better to discuss openly with the authorities were 2.8 times more likely to accept vaccination than other hesitating/ refusing groups, p-value < 0.001.

Conclusions:

Understanding students’ perspectives of the COVID-19 vaccine and supporting their health engagement and awareness may help plan an adequate response.

Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Since January 2020, worldwide public health has been threatened by COVID-19, for which vaccines have been adopted from December 2020.

DISCUSSION

Although vaccines demonstrate effectiveness against this disease, vaccine hesitancy reveals concerns towards short-term and long-term side effects or adverse reactions such as post-inoculation death. Mandatory vaccination is used to provide herd immunity, but is refutable due to infringement of human rights and autonomy. Furthermore, the evidence testifies that vaccination cannot guarantee prevention of infection or re-infection, resulting in public resentment against this coercive measure, whilst post-inoculation anxiety continues.

PERSPECTIVE

This discussion suggests a holistic approach, involving the collective efforts of governments, medical experts and individuals, through basic preventive measures and alternative therapy to live with COVID-19 in a healthy and resourceful manner.

Assessment of Public Opinion on Transparency at the US Food and Drug Administration

This survey study assesses public support for or opposition to transparency measures regarding the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval process.

Spillover: The Approval of New Medications for Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Will Impact Biomarker Disclosure Among Asymptomatic Research Participants

In this article we address how the recent, and anticipated upcoming, FDA approvals of novel anti-amyloid medications to treat individuals with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia could impact disclosure of biomarker results among asymptomatic research participants. Currently, research is typically the context where an asymptomatic individual may have the option to learn their amyloid biomarker status. Asymptomatic research participants who learn their amyloid status may have questions regarding the meaning of this result and the implications for accessing a potential intervention. After outlining our rationale, we provide examples of how current educational materials used in research convey messages regarding amyloid positivity and the availability of treatments, or lack thereof. We suggest language to improve messaging, as well as strengths of current materials, in addressing these issues for research participants. Although novel medications are currently only approved for use among symptomatic individuals, their availability may have implications for disclosure among asymptomatic research participants with evidence of amyloid deposition, who may be especially interested in information on these interventions for potential prevention, or future treatment, of mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD.

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and hesitancy among health care workers: A cross-sectional survey from a MERS-CoV experienced nation

Objectives

This study aimed to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among health care workers (HCWs).

Methods

An online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCWs in Saudi Arabia, which is a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCWs’ acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The factors associated with vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis, and the level of anxiety was measured using a validated instrument to measure general anxiety levels.

Results

Out of the 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire—of which 62.4% were women—70% were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. A logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa = 1.551, 95% CI: 1.122–2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa = 2.151; 95% CI: 1.708–2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa = 1.539; 95% CI: 1.259–1.881), and HCWs who rely on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa = 1.505, 95% CI: 1.125–2.013) were significantly associated with reporting a willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed that the vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa = 0.394, 95% CI: 0.298–0.522).

Conclusion

Most HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once they are available; the satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals’ knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for not only their own vaccine acceptance but also recommendation for such vaccines to their patients.

Public trust, information sources and vaccine willingness related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago: an online cross-sectional survey

Background

The response of populations to public health measures may rely on the degree to which the population trusts sources of information and institutions. There has been little research in this area in the Caribbean. This exploratory study aimed to evaluate public trust in information sources, confidence in institutions and COVID-19 vaccine willingness in Trinidad and Tobago.

Methods

An exploratory online survey was conducted in Trinidad and Tobago from November 10^th to December 7^th 2020. The survey instrument was a validated questionnaire developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and adapted to the local setting. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to analyse the data.

Findings

The most trusted sources of information included health workers (32.5%) and the ministry of health (23.6 %). Increasing levels of trust in the medical sector were associated with decreasing levels of believing misinformation. Overall, 62.8 % of participants said they would take the COVID-19 vaccine if available. Regression analyses showed those who agreed that everyone should adhere to the national immunization schedule and those who would take the flu vaccine, were 2.77 (95% CI 1.77-4.35) and 4.60 (95% CI 3.11-6.84) timesmore likely to take the vaccine, respectively.

Interpretation

Our study found increasing trust in health sources, confidence in medical sector, adherence to the national immunisation schedule and acceptance of the flu vaccine may increase COVID-19 vaccine willingness rates. Although the generalisability of the findings is limited, the results of this exploratory survey may be used to identify areas for prioritisation and improvement in future research.

Differences in Perceived Risk of Contracting SARS-CoV-2 during and after the Lockdown in Sub-Saharan African Countries

This study investigated risk perception of contracting and dying of SARS-CoV-2 in sub-Sahara Africa during and after the lockdown periods. Two online surveys were conducted one year apart, with participants 18 years and above living in sub-Sahara Africa or the diaspora. Each survey took four weeks. The first survey was taken from 18 April to 16 May 2020, i.e., during the lockdown. The second survey was taken from 14 April to 14 May 2021, i.e., after the lockdown. A cross-sectional study using adopted and modified questionnaires for both surveys were distributed through online platforms. Question about risks perception of contracting and dying of SARS-CoV-2 were asked. The Helsinki declaration was applied, and ethical approvals were obtained. Total responses for both surveys, i.e., both during and after the lockdown, was 4605. The mean age was similar in both surveys (18–28 years). The mean risk perception scores were higher after lockdown by 3.59%. Factors associated with risk perception of COVID-19 were survey period, age group, region of residence, and occupation. Non-health care workers had a lower risk perception of COVID-19. This first comparative study on the level of risk perception of Africans during and after the lockdown shows that one in every three and every four persons in sub-Sahara Africa felt at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and thought they could die from contracting the same, respectively.

Transparency, health equity, and strategies in state-based protocols for remdesivir allocation and use

Background

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of remdesivir for coronavirus disease 2019 raised questions on transparency of applied strategy, and how to equitably allocate and prioritize eligible patients given limited supply of the medication. The absence of federal oversight highlighted the critical role by states in health policymaking during a pandemic.

Objective

To identify public state-based protocols for remdesivir allocation and clinical guidance for prioritizing remdesivir use and assess approaches and inclusion of language promoting equitable access or mitigating health disparities.

Methods

We identified remdesivir allocation strategies and clinical use guidelines for all 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia accessible on state health department websites or via internet searches. Public protocols dated between May 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020 were included in the study. We reviewed strategies for allocation and clinical use, including whether protocols contained explicit language on equitable access to remdesivir or mitigating health disparities.

Results

A total of 38 states had a remdesivir allocation strategy, with 33 states (87%) making these public. States used diverse allocation strategies, and only 10 (30%) of the 33 states included language on equitable allocation. A total of 30 states had remdesivir clinical use guidelines, where all were publicly accessible. All guidelines referenced recommendations by federal agencies but varied in their presentation format. Of the 30 states, 12 (40%) had guidelines that included language on equitable use. Neither an allocation strategy or clinical use guideline were identified (public or non-public) for 10 states and the District of Columbia during the study period.

Conclusions

The experience with the remdesivir EUA presents an opportunity for federal and state governments to develop transparent protocols promoting fair and equal access to treatments for future pandemics.

Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities

How does the public want a COVID-19 vaccine to be allocated? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 15,536 adults in 13 countries to evaluate 248,576 profiles of potential vaccine recipients who varied randomly on five attributes. Our sample includes diverse countries from all continents. The results suggest that in addition to giving priority to health workers and to those at high risk, the public favors giving priority to a broad range of key workers and to those with lower income. These preferences are similar across respondents of different education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across most surveyed countries. The public favored COVID-19 vaccines being allocated solely via government programs but were highly polarized in some developed countries on whether taking a vaccine should be mandatory. There is a consensus among the public on many aspects of COVID-19 vaccination, which needs to be taken into account when developing and communicating rollout strategies.

Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities

How does the public want a COVID-19 vaccine to be allocated? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 15,536 adults in 13 countries to evaluate 248,576 profiles of potential vaccine recipients who varied randomly on five attributes. Our sample includes diverse countries from all continents. The results suggest that in addition to giving priority to health workers and to those at high risk, the public favors giving priority to a broad range of key workers and to those with lower income. These preferences are similar across respondents of different education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across most surveyed countries. The public favored COVID-19 vaccines being allocated solely via government programs but were highly polarized in some developed countries on whether taking a vaccine should be mandatory. There is a consensus among the public on many aspects of COVID-19 vaccination, which needs to be taken into account when developing and communicating rollout strategies.

Vaccine hesitancy: Beliefs and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccination among Egyptian medical students

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy poses serious challenges for achieving coverage for population immunity. It is necessary to achieve high COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates and medical students' coverage as future health care providers. The study aimed to explore the level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and determine the factors and barriers that may affect vaccination decision-making.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out among medical students in Tanta and Kafrelsheikh Universities, Egypt. Data collection was done via an online questionnaire during January 2021 from 2133 students.

RESULTS

The majority of the participant students (90.5%) perceived the importance of the COVID-19 vaccine, 46% had vaccination hesitancy, and an equal percentage (6%) either definitely accepted or refused the vaccine. Most of the students had concerns regarding the vaccine's adverse effects (96.8%) and ineffectiveness (93.2%). The most confirmed barriers of COVID-19 vaccination were deficient data regarding the vaccine's adverse effects (potential 74.17% and unknown 56.31%) and insufficient information regarding the vaccine itself (72.76%).

CONCLUSION

The government, health authority decision-makers, medical experts, and universities in Egypt need to work together and make efforts to reduce hesitancy and raise awareness about vaccinations, consequently improving the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, where do we stand?

Vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, represents a major infection control strategy in the absence of effective treatment of the disease to date. Unprecedented mobilization has led to the development of a large number of projects, some of which have already been in test in humans for several months. The first efficacy and safety data are expected in the coming weeks. New vaccine technologies are being evaluated (RNA, replicating or non-replicating viral vectors), further increasing the chances of success. The criteria for evaluating vaccines-despite the exceptional speed of their development-must remain rigorous enough to ensure their acceptance by the population. Beyond their development, mass production and equitable distribution raise many questions. Finally, vaccination can only be successfully implemented if health professionals and the population are convinced of its validity, which implies particular attention to the quality of the information given and the methods of communication.

Adenovirus and RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines' perceptions and acceptance among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.

SETTING

Online, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

Data were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1-15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.

RESULTS

Among the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine's efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine's manufacturing country (28.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

Addressing Emotional Wellness During the COVID-19 Pandemic: the Role of Promotores in Delivering Integrated Mental Health Care and Social Services

Introduction

The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Latino communities has resulted in greater reports of depression, anxiety, and stress. We present a community-led intervention in Latino communities that integrated social services in mental health service delivery for an equity-based response.

Methods

We used tracking sheets to identify 1,436 unique participants (aged 5–86) enrolled in Latino Health Access’s Emotional Wellness program, of whom 346 enrolled in the pre–COVID-19 period (March 2019–February 2020) and 1,090 in the COVID-19 period (March–June 2020). Demographic characteristics and types of services were aggregated to assess monthly trends using Pearson 𝜒² tests. Regression models were developed to compare factors associated with referrals in the pre–COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods.

Results

During the pandemic, service volume (P < .001) and participant volume (P < .001) increased significantly compared with the prepandemic period. Participant characteristics were similar during both periods, the only differences being age distribution, expanded geographic range, and increased male participation during the pandemic. Nonreferred services, such as peer support, increased during the pandemic period. Type of referrals significantly changed from primarily mental health services and disease management in the prepandemic period to affordable housing support, food assistance, and supplemental income.

Conclusion

An effective mental health program in response to the pandemic must incorporate direct mental health services and address social needs that exacerbate mental health risk for Latino communities. This study presents a model of how to integrate both factors by leveraging promotor-led programs.

"If a rabbi did say 'you have to vaccinate,' we wouldn't": Unveiling the secular logics of religious exemption and opposition to vaccination

Maintaining 'faith' in vaccination has emerged as a public health challenge amidst outbreaks of preventable disease among religious minorities and rising claims to 'exemption' from vaccine mandates. Outbreaks of measles and coronavirus have been particularly acute among Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in North America, Europe and Israel, yet no comparative studies have been conducted to discern the shared and situated influences on vaccine decision-making. This paper synthesises qualitative research into vaccine decision-making among Orthodox Jews in the United Kingdom and Israel during the 2014-15 and 2018-19 measles epidemics, and 2020-21 coronavirus pandemic. The methods integrate 66 semi-structured informal interviews conducted with parents, formal and informal healthcare practitioners, and religious leaders, as well as analysis of tailored non-vaccination advocacy events and literature. The paper argues that the discourse of 'religious' exemption and opposition to vaccination obscures the diverse practices and philosophies that inform vaccine decisions, and how religious law and leaders form a contingent influence. Rather than viewing religion as the primary framework through which vaccine decisions are made, Orthodox Jewish parents were more concerned with safety, trust and choice in similar ways to 'secular' logics of non-vaccination. Yet, religious frameworks were mobilised, and at times politicised, to suit medico-legal discourse of 'exemption' from coercive or mandatory vaccine policies. By conceptualising tensions around protection as 'political immunities,' the paper offers a model to inform social science understandings of how health, law and religion intersect in contemporary vaccine opposition.

Observation on China's Strategies to Prevent the Resurgence of the COVID-19 Epidemic

After the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in early 2020 was brought under control, there have been some regional and small-scale cases of new infections in China. In order to prevent the resurgence of the epidemic, the Chinese government has continued the use of effective prevention and control measures in key epidemic areas. New prevention and control measures have also been developed based on the characteristics of the epidemic and the social habits of the Chinese people. The strategies applied in China include large-scale nucleic acid testing, travel health code management, and patient treatment based on a combination of Chinese and Western medicine. These measures can provide a reference point for the global public health system that is facing the pandemic. The article suggests that to prevent a pandemic, we must not only rely on vaccines and drugs, but also need to take actions and apply social measures to manage the risk of infectious diseases.

Targeted Vaccine Allocation Could Increase the COVID-19 Vaccine Benefits Amidst Its Lack of Availability: A Mathematical Modeling Study in Indonesia

With a limited number of vaccines and healthcare capacity shortages, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, vaccination programs should seek the most efficient strategy to reduce the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemics. This study aims at assessing several scenarios of delivering the vaccine to people in Indonesia. We develop a model for several scenarios of delivering vaccines: without vaccination, fair distribution, and targeted distribution to five and eight districts with the highest COVID-19 incidence in West Java, one of the most COVID-19-affected regions in Indonesia. We calculate the needs of vaccines and healthcare staff for the program, then simulate the model for the initial 4-month and one-year scenarios. A one-year vaccination program would require 232,000 inoculations per day by 4833 vaccinators. Targeted vaccine allocation based on the burden of COVID-19 cases could benefit the COVID-19 vaccination program by lowering at least 5000 active cases. The benefits would increase by improving the number of vaccines and healthcare staff. Amidst lacking available vaccines, targeted vaccine allocation based on the burden of COVID-19 cases could increase the benefit of the COVID-19 vaccination program but still requires progressive efforts to improve healthcare capacity and vaccine availability for optimal protection for people.

COVID-19 vaccine challenges: What have we learned so far and what remains to be done?

Developing and distributing a safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccine has garnered immense global interest. Less than a year after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, several vaccine candidates had received emergency use authorization across a range of countries. Despite this scientific breakthrough, the journey from vaccine discovery to global herd immunity against COVID-19 continues to present significant policy challenges that require a collaborative, global response. We offer a framework for understanding remaining and new policy challenges for successful global vaccine campaigns against COVID-19 as well as potential solutions to address them. Decision-makers must be aware of these challenges and strategize solutions that can be implemented at scale. These include challenges around maintaining R&D incentives, running clinical trials, authorizations, post-market surveillance, manufacturing and supply, global dissemination, allocation, uptake, and clinical system adaption. Alongside these challenges, financial and ethical concerns must also be addressed.

Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health

Community water fluoridation (CWF), a long-established public health intervention, has been studied for scientific evidence from both of yea and nay standpoints. To justify CWF with scientific evidence inevitably leads to ethical justification, which raises the question of whether oral health is of individual concern or social responsibility. As dental caries is a public health problem, public health ethics should be applied to the topic instead of generic clinical ethics. From both pro- and anti-fluoridationists’ perspectives, CWF is a public health policy requiring a significant level of intervention. Thus, there needs to take further considerations for justifying CWF beyond the simple aspect of utility. For further ethical considerations on CWF, three caveats were suggested: procedural justice, social contexts, and maintenance of trust. The process to justify CWF should also be justified, not simply by majority rule but participatory decision-making with transparency and pluralistic democracy. Social contexts are to be part of the process of resolving conflicting values in public health interventions. Public trust in the dental profession and the oral healthcare system should be maintained over the considerations. This article suggests accountability for reasonableness as a framework to consider infringement by CWF for public justification of its implementation.

COVID-19 vaccination readiness among nurse faculty and student nurses

BACKGROUND

Unprecedented efforts are underway to develop COVID-19 vaccines, widely seen as critical to controlling the pandemic. Academic nursing leaders must be proactive in assuring widespread faculty and student vaccination uptake.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe nursing faculty and student nurse factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine readiness.

METHODS

Cross-sectional online survey of nursing faculty and student nurses at a university affiliated with an academic medical center was conducted.

FINDINGS

Most full-time faculty (60%) intended to receive the vaccine; but only 45% of adjunct faculty and students reported intending to get vaccinated. The major reasons for not getting vaccinated were vaccine safety and side effects. Collectively, participants reported a low level of knowledge related to vaccine development.

DISCUSSION

As the most trusted profession, nurses will play a decisive role in counseling patients about COVID-19 risks and benefits. Findings suggest that academic nursing leaders need to consider faculty and student vaccine concerns and provide vaccine development education.

Immune system response during viral Infections: Immunomodulators, cytokine storm (CS) and Immunotherapeutics in COVID-19

Coronaviruses are non-segmented and single stranded positive-sense RNA (+ssRNA) viruses. To date, 06 human coronaviruses (HCoVs) are reported; α-CoVs (HCoVs-NL63 and HCoVs-229E) and β-CoVs (HCoVs-OC43, HCoVs-HKU1, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV). While, novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is the most recent member. The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is 82% similar to SARS-COV-1. The compelling evidences link the progression of viral infection of SARS-CoV-2 with excessive inflammation as a result of the exaggerated immune response and elevated production of "immunocytokines" resulting in cytokine storm (CS); followed by a series of events, like acute organ damage, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) as well as death. Hence attempts to reduce cytokine storm are now being considered as a new paradigm shift in the clinical management of SARS-CoV-2. Tocilizumab (IL-6 blocker), Baricitinib (JAKs and AAK1 inhibitor), TNFα inhibitors (Infliximab, Adalimumab, Certolizumab) are currently being evaluated for possible block of the CS. Hence, rationalizing anti-inflammatory therapeutics would be the most judicious approach for significant reduction in COVID-19 mortality. In order to elucidate optimized and rationaled use of different therapeutics in COVID-19, we collated latest available information from emerging scientific evidences, integrated previous attempts as well as clinical successes, and various adopted approaches to mitigate past outbreaks with of SARS-CoV and MERS CoV.

COVID-19 vaccine development: a pediatric perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused substantial morbidity and mortality. Operation Warp Speed aims to accelerate the development of a safe and effective vaccine by early 2021. Multiple vaccine candidates with reassuring safety and efficacy profiles have advanced to phase 3 clinical trials in adults. The purpose of this review is to describe the burden of COVID-19 in children, to update pediatricians about adult COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, to discuss the importance of COVID-19 vaccine trials in children and to instill confidence in the established vaccine development and licensure processes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Children of all ages are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease manifestations. Children are also susceptible to downstream effects of COVID-19, including social isolation and interruption in education. Developing a pediatric COVID-19 vaccine could prevent disease, mitigate downstream effects and enable children to re-engage in their world.

SUMMARY

Children could benefit both directly and indirectly from vaccination. In light of the safety and immunogenicity results from recent adult COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, children should have the opportunity to be included in clinical trials in parallel to ongoing adult phase 3 clinical trials in a manner that is careful, methodical and transparent.

Examining the Public's Most Frequently Asked Questions Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines Using Search Engine Analytics in the United States: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The emergency authorization of COVID-19 vaccines has offered the first means of long-term protection against COVID-19-related illness since the pandemic began. It is important for health care professionals to understand commonly held COVID-19 vaccine concerns and to be equipped with quality information that can be used to assist in medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

Using Google's RankBrain machine learning algorithm, we sought to characterize the content of the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about COVID-19 vaccines evidenced by internet searches. Secondarily, we sought to examine the information transparency and quality of sources used by Google to answer FAQs on COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

We searched COVID-19 vaccine terms on Google and used the "People also ask" box to obtain FAQs generated by Google's machine learning algorithms. FAQs are assigned an "answer" source by Google. We extracted FAQs and answer sources related to COVID-19 vaccines. We used the Rothwell Classification of Questions to categorize questions on the basis of content. We classified answer sources as either academic, commercial, government, media outlet, or medical practice. We used the Journal of the American Medical Association's (JAMA's) benchmark criteria to assess information transparency and Brief DISCERN to assess information quality for answer sources. FAQ and answer source type frequencies were calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine associations between information transparency by source type. One-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in mean Brief DISCERN scores by source type.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 28 unique FAQs about COVID-19 vaccines. Most COVID-19 vaccine-related FAQs were seeking factual information (22/28, 78.6%), specifically about safety and efficacy (9/22, 40.9%). The most common source type was media outlets (12/28, 42.9%), followed by government sources (11/28, 39.3%). Nineteen sources met 3 or more JAMA benchmark criteria with government sources as the majority (10/19, 52.6%). JAMA benchmark criteria performance did not significantly differ among source types (χ 2 4=7.40; P=.12). One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in mean Brief DISCERN scores by source type (F 4,23=10.27; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently asked COVID-19 vaccine-related questions pertained to vaccine safety and efficacy. We found that government sources provided the most transparent and highest-quality web-based COVID-19 vaccine-related information. Recognizing common questions and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines may assist in improving vaccination efforts.