Vaccinating healthcare workers against 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.

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A discussion paper

BACKGROUND

The devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.

EXCLUSION

1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.

RESULTS

The review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.

CONCLUSION

The review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

To mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.

Continued disruptions in health care services and mental health among health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in five sub-Saharan African countries

Background

Continuous monitoring of the pandemic’s impact on health service provision and mental health, COVID-19 perceptions, and compliance with prevention measures among health care providers (HCPs) can help with mitigating the pandemic’s negative effects.

Methods

A computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey was conducted among 1499 HCPs in Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou), Ethiopia (Addis Ababa), Nigeria (Lagos and Ibadan), Tanzania (Dar es Salaam), and Ghana (Kintampo). Self-reported mental health, perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and prevention measures available in the workplace were assessed. HCPs’ responses to questions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on nine essential health services were summed into a score; high service disruption was defined as a score higher than the total average score across all sites. Modified Poisson regression was used to identify potential factors related to high service disruption.

Results

Overall, 26.9% of HCPs reported high service disruption, with considerable differences across sites (from 1.6% in Dar es Salaam to 45.0% in Addis Ababa). A considerable proportion of HCPs reported experiencing mild psychological distress (9.4%), anxiety (8.0%), and social avoidance or rejection (13.9%) due to their profession. Participants in Addis Ababa (absolute risk ratio (ARR) = 2.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.59-2.74), Lagos (ARR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.24-2.17), and Kintampo (ARR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.94-3.52) had a higher likelihood of reporting high service disruption compared to those in Ouagadougou. Reporting ever-testing for COVID-19 (ARR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.69-0.97) and the presence of COVID-19 guidelines in the workplace (ARR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.53-0.77) were both associated with lower reported health service disruption among HCPs.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt essential health services and present a challenge to HCPs’ mental health, with important differences across countries and settings; interventions are needed to mitigate these negative effects of the pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs).

AREAS COVERED

To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and January 25, 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI=12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI=3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

COVID-19's impact on neglected pharmaceutical staff: wake-up call for needed research

Discussion of the necessity of the compulsory vaccination of UK patient-facing care workers as an employment conditionality has deflected from the initial and ongoing impact of Coronavirus disease on relatively neglected occupational groups themselves, including community pharmacists. This commentary highlights the relative lack of research investigating the mental health and wellbeing impact of the pandemic on this occupational group in England and urges further study of their needs and experiences to inform evidence-based supportive psychological interventions.