Project description:Psychological reactance theory assumes that the restriction of valued behaviors elicits anger and negative cognitions, motivating actions to regain the limited freedom. Two studies investigated the effects of two possible restrictions affecting COVID-19 vaccination: the limitation of non-vaccination by mandates and the limitation of vaccination by scarce vaccine supply. In the first study, we compared reactance about mandatory and scarce vaccination scenarios and the moderating effect of vaccination intentions, employing a German quota-representative sample (N = 973). In the preregistered second study, we replicated effects with an American sample (N = 1394) and investigated the consequences of reactance on various behavioral intentions. Results revealed that reactance was stronger when a priori vaccination intentions were low and a mandate was introduced or when vaccination intentions were high and vaccines were scarce. In both cases, reactance increased intentions to take actions against the restriction. Further, reactance due to a mandate was positively associated with intentions to avoid the COVID-19 vaccination and an unrelated chickenpox vaccination; it was negatively associated with intentions to show protective behaviors limiting the spread of the coronavirus. Opposite intentions were observed when vaccination was scarce. The findings can help policy-makers to curb the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.
Project description:When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, the failure of many states to live up to their human rights obligations should be a central narrative. The pandemic began with Wuhan officials in China suppressing information, silencing whistleblowers, and violating the freedom of expression and the right to health. Since then, COVID-19's effects have been profoundly unequal, both nationally and globally. These inequalities have emphatically highlighted how far countries are from meeting the supreme human rights command of non-discrimination, from achieving the highest attainable standard of health that is equally the right of all people everywhere, and from taking the human rights obligation of international assistance and cooperation seriously. We propose embedding human rights and equity within a transformed global health architecture as the necessary response to COVID-19's rights violations. This means vastly more funding from high-income countries to support low-income and middle-income countries in rights-based recoveries, plus implementing measures to ensure equitable distribution of COVID-19 medical technologies. We also emphasise structured approaches to funding and equitable distribution going forward, which includes embedding human rights into a new pandemic treaty. Above all, new legal instruments and mechanisms, from a right to health treaty to a fund for civil society right to health advocacy, are required so that the narratives of future health emergencies-and people's daily lives-are ones of equality and human rights.
Project description:COVID-19 compulsory vaccination for healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a sensitive and controversial topic, with different support rates worldwide. Previous studies in Cyprus identified a low COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among HCPs, however, no studies have investigated their perceptions toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. This is the first study to investigate the attitudes of HCPs toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and its association with general vaccination knowledge. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using an online self-administered, anonymous questionnaire to collect data on sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, trust and satisfaction with the healthcare system, utilization of preventive healthcare services, COVID-19 vaccination information, vaccination knowledge, and attitudes among HCPs toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. A total of 504 HCPs participated in the survey, with 34% being in favor of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. A sufficient vaccination knowledge score was identified among the HCPs, with higher scores being associated with mandatory vaccination support (p < 0.001). As age increases by one year, the odds of supporting mandatory vaccination increase by 1.03 units (95% CI: 1.01-1.06). In addition, as the general vaccination knowledge score increases by one unit, the odds of supporting mandatory COVID-19 vaccination increase by 1.55 units (95% CI: 1.33-1.81). Our findings show that about two-thirds of the HCPs in Cyprus were opposed to a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Older age and general vaccination knowledge were found to be the strongest predictors of mandatory vaccination support. To avoid unforeseen outcomes, mandatory vaccination policies should be implemented with caution and consultation.
Project description:Mandatory vaccination (MV) against COVID-19 is a contentious topic. In this study, we used logistic regression models to identify attitudes among Sapienza University students towards MV for COVID-19. We considered three different scenarios: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (MCV) for healthcare workers (HCWs) (Model 1), for all people aged ≥ 12 years (Model 2), and for admission to schools and universities (Model 3). We collected 5287 questionnaires over a six-month period and divided these into three groups (September-October 2021, November-December 2021, and January-February 2022). MCV for HCWs was the most strongly supported policy (69.8% in favour), followed by MCV for admission to schools and universities (58.3%), and MCV for the general population (54.6%). In a multivariable analysis, the models showed both similarities and differences. There was no association of socio-demographic characteristics with the outcomes, apart from being enrolled in non-healthcare courses, which negatively affected Models 2 and 3. A greater COVID-19 risk perception was generally associated with a more positive attitude towards MCV, although heterogeneously across models. Vaccination status was a predictor of being in favour of MCV for HCWs, whereas being surveyed in November-February 2022 favoured MCV for admission to schools and universities. Attitudes towards MCV were variable across policies; thus, to avoid unintended consequences, these aspects should be carefully considered by policymakers.
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
Project description:The infections and deaths resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered the need for some governments to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. The present study aims to analyze the position of 3026 adults in Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain regarding the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine mandatory and the intention to be vaccinated with the booster or possible successive doses. Data from an online survey conducted from August to December 2021 among a non-representative sample of Spanish-speaking countries were collected. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models were used. A total of 77.4% of Colombians were in favor of mandatory vaccination compared to 71.5% of Salvadorians and 65.4% of Spaniards (p < 0.000). Women and people over 65 years of age were the groups most in favor of making the vaccine mandatory (p < 0.000). A total of 79.4% said they had received a third dose or would intend to receive the third dose or future doses, if necessary, compared with 9.4% who expressed doubts and 9.9% who refused to be vaccinated or did not intend to be vaccinated. Among the measures that could be taken to motivate vaccination, 63.0% and 60.6% were in favor of requiring a negative test to enter any place of leisure or work, respectively, compared to 16.2% in favor of suspension from work without pay. The acceptance of mandatory vaccination and of third or future doses varies greatly according to sociodemographic characteristics and work environment. As such, it is recommended that policy makers adapt public health strategies accordingly.
Project description:A preventive vaccination program is in operation in Poland. There are mandatory vaccinations for Polish residents under the age of 19 years. The law provides for financial penalties for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes of Polish residents aged 15-39 years to mandatory preventive vaccination and the level of acceptance for legal and financial sanctions for refusing mandatory vaccination of children.Materials and methodsA face-to-face questionnaire-based study of a representative sample of 1560 residents of Poland aged 15-39 years. Data was collected in the fourth quarter of 2021.ResultsIn the study group, 51.5% of the respondents believed that preventive vaccination should be mandatory, and parents should have the right to decide only about additional vaccinations. Multivariate analyses (logistic regression) revealed a significant association between acceptance of mandatory vaccination and the following factors: positive COVID-19 vaccination status, self-declared religiosity, and having children. Of the 1560 respondents, 25.3% declared support for legal or financial sanctions for those refusing to vaccinate their children. In this group (n = 394), the highest percentage of respondents (59.4%) supported sanctions in the form of refusal to admit an unvaccinated child to a nursery or kindergarten.ConclusionsDespite preventive (mandatory) vaccination programs having been in operation in Poland since the 1960's, only a little over 50% of adolescent Poles and young adults accept the vaccine mandate. Only 25% of this group declare their support for sanctions for refusing mandatory vaccination of children.
Project description:The novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an illness caused due to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared this outbreak a global health emergency and as on April 24, 2020, it has spread to 213 countries, with 25,91,015 confirmed cases and 742,855 cases have been recovered from COVID-19. In this dreadful situation our team has already published an article in the Science of the Total Environment, which elaborates the various aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this situation, it is imperative to understand the possible outcome of COVID-19 recovered patients and determine if they have any other detrimental illnesses by longitudinal analysis to safeguard their life in future. It is necessary to follow-up these recovered patients and performs comprehensive assessments for detection and appropriate management towards their psychological, physical, and social realm. This urges us to suggest that it is highly important to provide counselling, moral support as well as a few recommended guidelines to the recovered patients and society to restore to normalcy. Epidemiological, clinical and immunological studies from COVID-19 recovered patients are particularly important to understand the disease and to prepare better for potential outbreaks in the future. Longitudinal studies on a larger cohort would help us to understand the in-depth prognosis as well as the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Also, follow-up studies will help us provide more information for the development of vaccines and drugs for these kinds of pandemics in the future. Hence, we recommend more studies are required to unravel the possible mechanism of COVID-19 infection and the after-effects of it to understand the characteristics of the virus and to develop the necessary precautionary measures to prevent it.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has caused substantial disruptions in routine clinical care. Emerging data show that surgery in coronavirus disease (COVID)-positive cases can be associated with worsening of clinical outcomes and increased postoperative mortality. Hence, preoperative COVID-19 testing for all patients before elective surgery was implemented in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Two hundred and sixty-two asymptomatic cancer patients were preoperatively tested for COVID-19 using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction technique with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. All negative patients were operated within 72?hours, and positive patients were quarantined for a minimum 14 days before re-swabbing. RESULTS:In our cohort, 21 of 262 (8.0%) asymptomatic preoperative patients, who were otherwise fit for surgery, tested positive. After adequate quarantine and a negative follow-up test report, 12 of 21 (57%) had an operation. No major postoperative morbidity due to COVID-19 was noted during the immediate postoperative period before discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION:Routine preoperative COVID-19 testing was successful in identifying asymptomatic viral carriers. There was no incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 disease in the postoperative period, and there was no incidence of morbidity attributable to COVID-19. These data suggested a beneficial role for mandatory preoperative COVID-19 testing.