Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and human rights.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: King J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700276 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe 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 objectivesTo 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.MethodsThis 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.Exclusion1) 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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 abstractTo mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.
| S-EPMC9709452 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8239828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine mandates are considered a controversial public health policy both in public debate and among healthcare workers (HCWs). Thus, the objective of this systematic review is to give a deep insight into HCWs' views and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination mandates amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic literature search of five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was conducted between July 2022 and November 2022. Original quantitative studies that addressed the attitudes of HCWs regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates were considered eligible for this systematic review. All the included studies (n = 57) were critically appraised and assessed for risk of systematic bias. Meta-analyses were performed, providing a pooled estimate of HCWs' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine mandates for: 1. HCWs and 2. the general population.ResultsIn total, 64% (95% CI: 55%, 72%) of HCWs favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs, while 50% (95% CI: 38%, 61%) supported mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the general population.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 is a highly controversial issue among HCWs. The present study provides stakeholders and policy makers with useful evidence related to the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs and the general population. Other: The protocol used in this review is registered on PROSPERO with the ID number: CRD42022350275.
| S-EPMC10142794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.
| S-EPMC10512846 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9671650 | biostudies-literature
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.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress
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.
| S-EPMC9130732 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10141490 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9146574 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9147164 | biostudies-literature