Perception of COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccine among Healthcare Workers in India and Saudi Arabia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
COVID-19 vaccines were made available to the public by the end of 2020. However, little is known about COVID-19 booster dose (CBD) vaccine perception among healthcare workers (HCW) worldwide. The present study aims to assess the perception of CBD vaccines among healthcare workers in India and Saudi Arabia (SA).Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs in two countries, India and SA. Data were gathered through the use of a self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sampling technique was utilized to collect the data.Results
A total of 833 HCW responses were collected from the two countries, with 530 participants from India and 303 participants from SA responding to the questionnaire. Among them, 16% from India and 33% from SA were unwilling to take a CBD (p < 0.005). The primary reasons for not being willing were concerns about whether the vaccine would be effective (32%) and concerns about probable long-term side effects (31%). Concerns about not knowing enough about the vaccination (30%) and the possibility of long-term side effects (28%) were the primary concerns in SA. Regression analysis showed that males, urban residents, and post-graduates were more willing to take the CBD.Conclusion
There is a good perception of CBD and some hesitancy in receiving the booster dose among HCWs in both countries. The introduction of personalized education, risk communication, and deliberate policy could help to reduce the number of people who are unwilling to take a booster shot.
SUBMITTER: Vellappally S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9332579 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic is still continuing throughout the world, with newer genetic variants regularly appearing from different parts of the world. Considering the waning of immunity against COVID-19 infection even with two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, regulatory authorities have authorised booster COVID-19 vaccination in many countries, especially for vulnerable populations, including healthcare workers. The current study analysed factors predicting the third (booster) dose of COVID-19 vaccine intention, including the health belief model (HBM), among the healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia. Methods: The current study was a cross-sectional online survey performed from 1st October 2021 to 30th November 2021, using a questionnaire prepared in GoogleTM form among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire asked demographic factors, COVID-19 experience of participants, subjective assessment of health, intention of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination, preferences for local/foreign-made vaccines, and health belief of the study population related to COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 booster dose. Results: This study received 2059 complete responses. The study population reported mixed health belief with respect to the susceptibility of COVID-19 infection, and higher health belief perception regarding the severity. The perceptions of the study participants regarding the benefits of COVID-19 booster dose were positive. There were few barriers to COVID-19 booster dose expressed by study participants. A total of 1464 (71.1%) study participants reported positive intent for receiving a COVID-19 booster dose. The study showed significant association between definite intention to receive a booster dose and nationality (p = 0.001), marital status (p = 0.017), gender (p < 0.001), education level (p = 0.001), monthly income (p < 0.001), and co-morbid medical illness (p = 0.045). The perception of the COVID-19 booster vaccine as a good idea to minimise worries about getting COVID-19 (OR = 2.28, CI 1.89-2.76), and perceptions that receiving the third (booster) dose reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection and associated complications (OR= 2.69, CI = 2.17-3.34), of the perceived benefit construct of HBM, predicted significantly higher definite intention to receive a booster dose. The concern with the safety of the vaccine (OR= 0.40, CI 0.34-0.47) under the perceived barriers construct of HBM predicted as significantly higher no definite intention to receive a booster dose. Conclusions: The results of the present study can guide policy makers in their efforts to promote booster doses of COVID-19 vaccination among the healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia.
| S-EPMC9317226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) face considerable mental and physical stress caring for patients with Covid-19. They are at higher risk of acquiring and transmitting this virus. This study aims to assess perception and attitude of HCWs in Saudi Arabia with regard to Covid-19, and to identify potential associated predictors.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, HCWs at three tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia were surveyed via email with an anonymous link, by a concern scale about Covid-19 pandemic during 15-30 April, 2020. Concerns of disease severity, governmental efforts to contain it and disease outcomes were assessed using 32 concern statements in five distinct domains. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors of high concern scores.ResultsA total of 844 HCW responded to the survey. Their average age was 40.4 ± 9.5 years, 40.3% were nurses, 58.2% had direct patient contact, and 77.3% were living with others. The majority of participants (72.1%) had overall concern scores of 55 or less out of a maximum score of 96 points, with an overall mean score of 48.5 ± 12.8 reflecting moderate level of concern. Three-fourth of respondents felt at risk of contracting Covid-19 infection at work, 69.1% felt threatened if a colleague contracted Covid-19, 69.9% felt obliged to care for patients infected with Covid-19 while 27.7% did not feel safe at work using the standard precautions available. Nearly all HCWs believed that the government should isolate patients with Covid-19 in specialized hospitals (92.9%), agreed with travel restriction to and/or from areas affected by Covid-19 (94.7%) and felt safe the government implemented curfew and movement restriction periods (93.6%). Predictors of high concern scores were; HCWs of Saudi nationality (p < 0.001), younger age (p = 0.003), undergraduate education (p = 0.044), living with others (p = 0.003) working in the western region (p = 0.003) and direct contact with patients (p = 0.018).ConclusionsThis study highlights the high concern among HCWs about Covid-19 and identifies the predictors of those with highest concern levels. To minimize the potential negative impact of those concerns on the performance of HCWs during pandemics, measures are necessary to enhance their protection and to minimize the psychological effect of the perceived risk of infection.
| S-EPMC7523489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe burden of COVID-19 pandemic affected the globe, and it is unclear how it has impacted the general perception of other vaccines. We aimed to investigate the public awareness, knowledge, and attitude towards other complementary vaccines after the mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Saudi Arabia using a survey distributed via several social media platforms in June 2022. The questionnaire had three main sections; awareness; attitudes; and demographic information. Descriptive analysis was mainly used and supplemented with Chi-square test for correlation. All individuals over the age of 18 were eligible to participate in the study.ResultsA total of 1,045 participants from Saudi Arabia completed the survey. Of the respondents, 55.9% were female, and 95% were Saudi citizens. Public awareness towards vaccines after the mandate of COVID-19 vaccine was the highest with the influenza vaccine (98.2%), followed by human papillomavirus (HPV) (40.7%), tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) (37.2%), and lastly, pneumococcal vaccine (17%). More than 50% of the participants expressed their willingness to receive any of the four vaccines if they knew about the benefits related to these vaccines.ConclusionThe study showed that participants were willing to receive the vaccination if they were aware of the general benefits of vaccinations. Therefore, health education and campaigns toward recommended vaccines for high-risk group are essential and needed.
| S-EPMC10130326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is an extremely contagious respiratory disease. It poses a serious threat to healthcare workers which may cause substantial degree of psychological distress. This study aimed to evaluate the level of fear and anxiety among healthcare workers. A cross sectional study was designed to collect data from healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia using an online questionnaire. A non-probability convenient sampling technique was used to collect the data from 1st August to 10th August 2020 with the exclusion of non-healthcare worker and general public. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the level of fear and anxiety. The data was analyzed by using Spss version 23 .The descriptive data were represented as frequencies and percentage. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was applied to control the confounding factors and assess the relationship between variables. Data analyzed 737 participants revealed that 10.7%, 73.5%, and 15.7% of HCWs had a mild, moderate, and severe degree of fear and anxiety respectively. The multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that gender and specialty of the participants were significantly associated with moderate and severe anxiety level. This study demonstrates that two-third of the healthcare workers had a moderate risk of fear and anxiety. However, females participants found to have elevated fear and anxiety level. Social distancing has a major impact on social well-being therefore its important to address social support through a policy. Further studies are needed to explore the mental health condition of healthcare workers in order to develop evidence based strategies.
| S-EPMC8312152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLittle is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1-IRR (incidence rate ratio), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (two doses) to those who received an mRNA booster.ResultsA total of 11,427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine vs. 0.9% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001), and 9.8% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine vs. 1% among HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for two CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster, and 60.2% for two ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared to those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants.ConclusionsWhile two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.
| S-EPMC9213833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine reluctance among healthcare workers (HCW) can have widespread negative ramifications, including modeling behavior for the general population and challenges with maintaining a healthy workforce so we can respond to a resurgence of the pandemic. We previously reported that only one-third of HCW were willing to take the vaccine as soon as it became available prior to its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Here, we re-examine the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines among HCW several months after the vaccines have been made widely available. In this study, only 7.9% (n = 107) of respondents were hesitant to take the first or second dose of the vaccine. Younger age (18-40 years) and lower level of education attainment (GED or less) were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas self-identified Asian racial identity was associated with greater acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Among the vaccine-hesitant group, more respondents noted mistrust of regulatory authorities (45.3%), government (48.6%), and pharmaceutical companies (50%) than mistrust of doctors (25.4%). Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned that vaccination may be ineffective against new strains and booster doses may be required; however, vaccine-hesitant respondents' acceptance of a hypothetical booster dose was only 14.3%. Overall, vaccine hesitancy was observed to have demographic predictors similar to those previously reported; the hesitancy of some US HCW to receive booster doses may reflect a general hesitancy to receive other forms of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8617683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic places a high demand on frontline healthcare workers. Healthcare workers are at high-risk of contracting the virus and are subjected to its consequential emotional and psychological effects. This study aimed to measure the level of depression and anxiety among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study; data were collected from healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia using a survey that included the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7. A total of 326 participants took part in the study by completing and submitting the survey.ResultsThe vast majority of the participating healthcare workers were Saudi nationals (98.8%) working in a public healthcare facility (89.9%). The results indicated that most of the participants had mild levels of anxiety and depression. A total of 72.5% of the respondents had anxiety, ranging from mild (44.1%) to moderate (16.2%) and severe (12.2%). Moreover, 24.4% of the respondents had depression ranging from mild (21.7%) to moderate (2.1%) and severe (0.6%). The generalized linear models showed that the <30 age group (Beta = 0.556, p = 0.037) and the 30-39-year age group (Beta = 0.623, p = 0.019) were predicted to have anxiety. The analysis revealed that females were more anxious (Beta = 0.241, p = 0.005) than males. Healthcare providers working in primary healthcare centers (Beta = -0.315, p = 0.008) and labs (Beta = -0.845. p = 0.0001 were predicted to be less anxious than those working in other healthcare facilities. The data analysis showed that participants with good economic status had more depression than the participants in the other economic status groups (Beta = 0.067, p = 0.003).ConclusionThis study found that the level of anxiety and depression in healthcare workers was mild. The factors that may contribute to anxiety in healthcare workers included being female, being younger than 30 or between the ages of 31 and 39, working in a specialized hospital facility, and the number of COVID-19 cases the workers dealt with. Economic status was associated with depression. A longitudinal study design is needed to understand the pattern of anxiety levels among healthcare workers over time during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9744137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study demonstrated a favorable short-term safety profile after a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs). There were more frequent local reactions and less systemic reactions compared to the second dose. The HCWs who reported reactions had higher prebooster titer of anti-S1 antibodies compared to those who reported no reactions.
| S-EPMC8755369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and waning vaccine-elicited immunity are two public health challenges that occurred simultaneously and synergistically during the summer of 2021 and led to a surging demand for COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (BD) rollout. This study aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) among Czech healthcare workers to explore the potential determinants of VBH. A national cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between 3 and 11 November 2021, using an online self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) that explored the participants' demographic characteristics, COVID-19 infection and vaccine anamneses, willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine BD, and the psychosocial drivers of VBH. A total of 3454 HCW properly responded to the online SAQ, of which 80.9% were females, 30.3% were medical professionals, and 50.5% were ≤47 years old. Most of the participants were already inoculated against SARS-CoV-2 (95.2%), and BTN162b2 was the most commonly administered vaccine (90.7%). As the study sample was planned to represent the target population, it revealed a high level of BD acceptance (71.3%) among Czech HCW, while 12.2% were still hesitant and 16.6% were against the currently available BD. These results are consistent with other recent results from central Europe. Medical professional, male, and older participants were more likely to accept BD rather than allied health professional, female, and younger participants. The BDs' perceived effectiveness against severe illness, symptomatic infection, and community transmission was a significant and strong predictor for BD acceptance, while the effectiveness against the circulating variants was not that important for our target population. The BDs' perceived safety and ethical dilemmas of vaccine justice should be addressed sufficiently while communicating with HCW and other population groups. The altruistic reasons for BD acceptance, i.e., family protection, patient protection, and community health protection, underpin the recommendation of postponing the COVID-19 vaccine mandating in favour of stressing these altruistic concerns amid public health messaging.
| S-EPMC8705445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and led to increased mortality and morbidity. Vaccines against the etiologic agent; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) were approved for emergency use on different platforms. In the early phase of the pandemic, Thai healthcare workers (HCWs) received CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine, as the first vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, followed by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, a viral vector-based vaccine, or BNT162b2, an mRNA vaccine, as a booster dose. This preliminary study evaluated the immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 as a booster dose in HCWs who previously received two doses of CoronaVac.MethodsTen HCW participants received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and another 10 HCWs received BNT162b2 as a booster dose after two doses of CoronaVac. Anti-RBD IgG, neutralizing antibodies (NAb), and cellular immunity, including interferon-gamma (IFN-γ)-releasing CD4, CD8, double negative T cells, and NK cells, were measured at 3 and 5 months after the booster dose.ResultsThere was no significant difference in anti-RBD IgG levels at 3 and 5 months between the two different types of booster vaccine. The levels of anti-RBD IgG and NAb were significantly decreased at 5 months. HCWs receiving BNT162b2 had significantly higher NAb levels than those receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at 5 months after the booster dose. IFN-γ release from CD4 T cells was detected at 3 months with no significant difference between the two types of booster vaccines. However, IFN-γ-releasing CD4 T cells were present at 5 months in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group only.ConclusionChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 can be used as a booster dose after completion of the primary series primed by inactivated vaccine. Although the levels of immunity decline at 5 months, they may be adequate during the first 3 months after the booster dose.
| S-EPMC11250167 | biostudies-literature