Vaccinations of healthcare workers (HCWs) aim to directly protect them from occupational diseases, and indirectly protect their patients and communities. However, studies increasingly highlight that HCWs can be vaccine hesitant. This review aims to analyze HCWs’ and public health professionals’ sentiments toward COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) vaccination and determinants across different countries. A search strategy was conducted in PubMed using keywords such as “COVID-19”, “sentiment/acceptance”, “healthcare workers”, “vaccine hesitancy”, and “influenza”. A total of 56 articles were selected for in-depth analyses. The highest COVID-19 vaccination uptake was found in an Italian study (98.9%), and the lowest in Cyprus (30%). Older age, male gender, the medical profession, higher education level, presence of comorbidities, and previous influenza vaccination were associated with vaccine acceptance. Factors for low acceptance were perceived side effects of the vaccine, perceived lack of effectiveness and efficacy, and lack of information and knowledge. Factors for acceptance were knowledge, confidence in the vaccine, government, and health authorities, and increased perception of fear and susceptibility. All studies focused on healthcare providers; no studies focusing on public health professionals’ sentiments could be found, indicating a gap in research that needs to be addressed. Interventions must be implemented with vaccination campaigns to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.
Background Global pandemics have occurred with increasing frequency over the past decade reflecting the sub-optimum operationalization of surveillance systems handling human health data. Despite the wide array of current surveillance methods, their effectiveness varies with multiple factors. Here, we perform a systematic review of the effectiveness of alternative infectious diseases Early Warning Systems (EWSs) with a focus on the surveillance data collection methods, and taking into consideration feasibility in different settings. Methods We searched PubMed and Scopus databases on 21 October 2022. Articles were included if they covered the implementation of an early warning system and evaluated infectious diseases outbreaks that had potential to become pandemics. Of 1669 studies screened, 68 were included in the final sample. We performed quality assessment using an adapted CASP Checklist. Results Of the 68 articles included, 42 articles found EWSs successfully functioned independently as surveillance systems for pandemic-wide infectious diseases outbreaks, and 16 studies reported EWSs to have contributing surveillance features through complementary roles. Chief complaints from emergency departments’ data is an effective EWS but it requires standardized formats across hospitals. Centralized Public Health records-based EWSs facilitate information sharing; however, they rely on clinicians’ reporting of cases. Facilitated reporting by remote health settings and rapid alarm transmission are key advantages of Web-based EWSs. Pharmaceutical sales and laboratory results did not prove solo effectiveness. The EWS design combining surveillance data from both health records and staff was very successful. Also, daily surveillance data notification was the most successful and accepted enhancement strategy especially during mass gathering events. Eventually, in Low Middle Income Countries, working to improve and enhance existing systems was more critical than implementing new Syndromic Surveillance approaches. Conclusions Our study was able to evaluate the effectiveness of Early Warning Systems in different contexts and resource settings based on the EWSs’ method of data collection. There is consistent evidence that EWSs compiling pre-diagnosis data are more proactive to detect outbreaks. However, the fact that Syndromic Surveillance Systems (SSS) are more proactive than diagnostic disease surveillance should not be taken as an effective clue for outbreaks detection.
INTRODUCTIONThe COVID-19 era highlighted vaccine hesitancy (VH) among health workers (HWs) as a major hurdle to optimum immunization practices. Through the identification of relevant determinants, barriers, and interventions to counteract VH, this literature review examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HWs' influenza vaccination sentiment. METHODS Studies were identified by searching the PubMed database for articles published between August 2019 and July 2022. The search was restricted to articles in English that were original studies or meta-analyses or reviews. They were included in the review if they covered influenza VH among HWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes that illustrate facilitators, barriers, and consideration. Risk of bias was not assessed. RESULTS Of 924 articles identified, 20 were selected. Of these, 15 were conducted in Europe and focused on healthcare staff, primarily in hospital settings. Within the COVID-19 context, physicians and residents were more willing than nurses to adhere to influenza vaccination. Young HWs, particularly males and those with chronic comorbidities, demonstrated the highest acceptance of the influenza vaccine. HWs' immunization history is associated with higher influenza vaccine adherence. Factors determining HW's acceptance of flu immunization were: healthcare staff's knowledge of the influenza vaccine, concerns about protecting themselves or others, and the rising perception of risk and fear from COVID-19 infection. Main barriers were negative perceptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness, insufficient time for vaccine uptake, and confidence in natural or acquired immunity. In the context of the pandemic, awareness campaigns and targeting vaccine affordability and accessibility were the most adopted interventions to increase vaccine acceptance amongst HWs. CONCLUSIONS In the context of COVID-19, confidence in influenza vaccines and the perception of risk from COVID-19 infection have increased among healthcare staff. To further explore the impact of the pandemic on HWs' sentiment toward influenza vaccination, conducting new empirical studies are strongly recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.