Dataset Information

Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020.

ABSTRACT: Immunity certificates related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been under discussion since the beginning of the pandemic with conflicting opinions. In order to identify arguments in favor of and against the possible implementation of documents certifying immunity of an individual based on serological testing, we developed a qualitative study in Geneva, Switzerland. The study took place between two lockdowns with a sense of semi-normalcy during summer 2020 in Switzerland but at a time when no vaccine was available and seroprevalence was below 21%. Eleven focus groups with members of the public and 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted between July and November 2020, with a total of 68 participants with an age range between 24 and 77 years. Interviews and focus groups transcripts were coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS. Few participants considered immunity certificates based on serological testing as an acceptable public health measure. Major concerns included the reliability of scientific data related to COVID-19 immunity and serological testing potential re-infection as well as the possibility that the use of certificates could result in deleterious outcomes. Discrimination, counterfeiting, incitement for self-infection, invasion of the private sphere, violation of personal integrity, and violation of medical secrecy were perceived as the major risks. Benefits of immunity certificates were more perceived when in relation to vaccination, and included gains in medical knowledge and protection in certain contexts involving leisure or work-related activities. The consequences of implementing immunity certificates are numerous, and the acceptability by the general population has to be considered when engaging in such policy. Even if the results provide a snapshot of arguments discussed around immunity certificates based on serological testing before the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine, most of the issues discussed are central in the current debates about vaccination certificates.

SUBMITTER: Fargnoli V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8416097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsCOVID-19 vaccination has been in the spotlight for almost a year now, both within the scientific community and in the general population. The issue of healthcare workers' (HCWs) hesitancy is particularly salient, given that they are at the forefront of the fight against COVID-19. Not only could unvaccinated HCW spread the disease, but HCWs are also critical messengers in building confidence towards COVID-19 vaccines. The goal of this study was to examine the perception of COVID-19 risk and of its vaccine acceptance among employees (i.e., HCW plus administrative staff) in the Department of Paediatrics, Gynaecology and Obstetrics at the University Hospitals of Geneva, for the purpose of drawing lessons on the determinants of vaccination morale.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous online survey comparing vaccination attitudes among vaccinated and unvaccinated workers in June 2021. It included questions on perception of COVID-19 risks and COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccination was not mandatory in our institution but was strongly recommended.ResultsIn June 2021, 66% of the 1,800 employees of our department had received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine by the time of the survey. Among the employees, 776 participated (43%) to the survey, and among them 684 (88%) had chosen to be vaccinated. Participants working for longer in a hospital, with a chronic disease and a household contact with chronic disease were more likely to be vaccinated. Doctors were twice as likely to be vaccinated than nurses. Among unvaccinated hospital employees, 48 (52%) responded that they would not change their mind. Further, 35 (38%) were not feeling in danger of contracting severe COVID-19, and 32 (35%) had fears about possible side effects of COVID-19 vaccines that they wanted to discuss with a specialist.ConclusionOur study indicates that, while two-third of the employees had been vaccinated, quite many were still hesitant. The unvaccinated explained their choice by not feeling at risk of complicated COVID-19, and because of fear of possible side effects associated with the vaccine. Investments in COVID-19 vaccine education is a critical component for increasing vaccine acceptance among the unvaccinated.

Project description:BackgroundThe death toll after SARS-CoV-2 emergence includes deaths directly or indirectly associated with COVID-19. Mexico reported 325,415 excess deaths, 34.4% of them not directly related to COVID-19 in 2020. In this work, we aimed to analyse temporal changes in the distribution of the leading causes of mortality produced by COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico to understand excess mortality not directly related to the virus infection.MethodsWe did a longitudinal retrospective study of the leading causes of mortality and their variation with respect to cause-specific expected deaths in Mexico from January 2020 through December 2021 using death certificate information. We fitted a Poisson regression model to predict cause-specific mortality during the pandemic period, based on the 2015-2019 registered mortality. We estimated excess deaths as a weekly difference between expected and observed deaths and added up for the entire period. We expressed all-cause and cause-specific excess mortality as a percentage change with respect to predicted deaths by our model.FindingsCOVID-19 was the leading cause of death in 2020-2021 (439,582 deaths). All-cause total excess mortality was 600,590 deaths (38⋅2% [95% CI: 36·0 to 40·4] over expected). The largest increases in cause-specific mortality, occurred in diabetes (36·8% over expected), respiratory infections (33·3%), ischaemic heart diseases (32·5%) and hypertensive diseases (25·0%). The cause-groups that experienced significant decreases with respect to the expected pre-pandemic mortality were infectious and parasitic diseases (-20·8%), skin diseases (-17·5%), non-traffic related accidents (-16·7%) and malignant neoplasm (-5·3%).InterpretationMortality from COVID-19 became the first cause of death in 2020-2021, the increase in other causes of death may be explained by changes in the health service utilization patterns caused by hospital conversion or fear of the population using them. Cause-misclassification cannot be ruled out.FundingThis study was funded by Conacyt.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the 2020/2021 winter, the labour market was under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in socioeconomic resources during this period could have influenced individual mental health. This association may have been mitigated or exacerbated by subjective risk perceptions, such as perceived risk of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 or perception of the national economic situation. Therefore, we aimed to determine if changes in financial resources and employment situation during and after the second COVID-19 wave were prospectively associated with depression, anxiety and stress, and whether perceptions of the national economic situation and of the risk of getting infected modified this association.MethodsOne thousand seven hundred fifty nine participants from a nation-wide population-based eCohort in Switzerland were followed between November 2020 and September 2021. Financial resources and employment status were assessed twice (Nov2020-Mar2021, May-Jul 2021). Mental health was assessed after the second measurement of financial resources and employment status, using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). We modelled DASS-21 scores with linear regression, adjusting for demographics, health status, social relationships and changes in workload, and tested interactions with subjective risk perceptions.ResultsWe observed scores above thresholds for normal levels for 16% (95%CI = 15-18) of participants for depression, 8% (95%CI = 7-10) for anxiety, and 10% (95%CI = 9-12) for stress. Compared to continuously comfortable or sufficient financial resources, continuously precarious or insufficient resources were associated with worse scores for all outcomes. Increased financial resources were associated with higher anxiety. In the working-age group, shifting from full to part-time employment was associated with higher stress and anxiety. Perceiving the Swiss economic situation as worrisome was associated with higher anxiety in participants who lost financial resources or had continuously precarious or insufficient resources.ConclusionThis study confirms the association of economic stressors and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights the exacerbating role of subjective risk perception on this association.

Dataset Information

Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets