With the planned COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitation is a great challenge, particularly for healthcare professionals. In this study, we examined the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine by health care workers, their concerns about it, and the reasons that might prevent them from getting vaccinated. We conducted a cross-sectional study using an anonymous online survey from December 25, 2020, to January 6, 2021. The questionnaire consisted of demographic characteristics (age, gender, profession, sector, medical history, and general health), COVID-19 related knowledge, and personal history of influenza vaccination. The intention to get the vaccine once it is available was directly asked, and attitudes towards the diseases and the vaccine were studied using a four-point Likert scale statement based on the health belief model's constructs. The study included 1159 HCWs; 62.9% were females, and 52.5% were between the ages of 30–49 years. The intention to get vaccinated was only 37.8% [95%CI: 35.0%–40.6%], while 31.5% were undecided, and 30.7% planned to refuse it. Higher levels of intention were reported among males (OR; 2.7, 95%CI: 2.0–3.7), younger ages (OR 1.7, 95%CI: 1.1–2.8), physicians (OR; 2.9, 95%CI: 2.0–4.0), HCWs at non-governmental settings (OR; 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1–1.9), those who previously received the influenza vaccine (OR 4.0, 95%CI: 2.3–7.1), and those who had higher COVID-19 related knowledge (OR; 1.7, 95%CI: 2.3–7.1). In conclusion, vaccine acceptance among HCWs was much lower than expected, which would greatly diminish the role of vaccination in reducing the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the community.

Background: COVID-19 is thought to be the most significant public health threat the modern world has encountered. Health care workers (HCWs) face enormous pressure due to work overload, negative emotions, exhaustion, lack of contact with their families, and risk of catching the infection and death. Aim: This study aims to assess the level of stress perceived by HCWs and possible associated factors during the COVID-19 outbreak in Palestine. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 430 frontlines HCWs was conducted using an online self-reported questionnaire. HCWs’ stress from the COVID-19 outbreak, factors that increase stress, and the activities that reduced stress were assessed. Chi-square test was used to compare between a categorical variable and the study outcome; associations are presented as odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (95% CI) with 0.05 significance level. Al-Najah National University institutional review board granted ethics approval. Results: Most respondents (74.0%) reported high-stress levels during the outbreak. Fear of transmitting the virus to family was the most stressful factor (91.6%). HCWs who did not have training on the outbreak response were more likely to have high-stress levels (OR = 2.7 [95% CI = 1.7-4.4], P < .001). Those with high stress reported being disappointed (OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.5-3.6], P < .001), and strongly considered taking sick leave (OR = 3.9 [95% CI = 1.9-7.9], P < .001). Conclusion: HCWs are under tremendous stress, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the psychological impact of the outbreak on HCWs and the activities that mitigate the stress is crucial to guide policies and interventions that can maintain psychological well-being.

Background: The high potential risks involved in working in a healthcare setting during a pandemic and the associated fear that may affect health care workers' (HCWs') willingness to work are important to understand to eliminate potential barriers to working. This study aimed to assess Palestinian HCWs' willingness to work and the related factors as well as to explore their ethical dilemmas during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Materials and Methods: Quantitative (survey questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) data were collected. Frontline HCWs (n = 550) received an online survey link via closed institutional networks. Frequencies summarized the data, and chi-square compared variables and outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and multivariable analysis examined predictors for willingness to work. Fifteen HCWs (physicians, nurses, and lab and radiology technicians) were purposefully sampled and agreed to interviews to explore their thoughts, motivations, and worries. Thematic analysis focused on ethical dilemmas to enhance the breadth and the depth of the study.Results: Almost 25% of surveyed HCWs were not willing to work during the pandemic. Logistic model results showed that physicians and nurses had higher willingness to work than others (p = 0.004, Adj. OR = 3.5). Lower stress levels and longer professional experience were predictors of more willing to work (p = 0.03, Adj. OR = 2.5; p = 0.03, Adj. OR = 2.6, respectively). Interviews showed that willingness to work did not preclude HCWs from fulfilling their duties despite grueling workloads and grave fears about safety and security. HCWs felt poorly prepared, unappreciated, and frustrated by unfair work distribution. The occupation presented additional safety issues.Conclusion: Physicians and nurses were more likely to comply with a commitment to their professional ethics and the duty or obligation to work. Stress levels could be mitigated in the future with better leadership, adding supports to address mental health and psychosocial challenges to enhance HCWs' well-being and improve quality of care. The realities of the occupation added additional threats and uncertainty.

Objective To measure COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance and related factors to undercover nurses' concerns and fears. Design A cross‐sectional study. Sample The study included 639 nurses; 83% were women and 80% under 50 years. Measurement A self‐administered questionnaire was used. It included demographic characteristics, COVID‐19‐related fears and concerns, COVID‐19 vaccine perceived benefits, and intention toward getting the vaccine. Results Forty percent of the nurses planned to get the vaccine when available, 41% would take it later when adequate protection and safety were presented, and 18% would never take it. Significant factors associated with vaccination intention were as follows: age (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02–1.99); lack of knowledge about the vaccine (adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.81–3.8); concern about long‐term side effects (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4–2.9); fear of injection (adjusted OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.04–2.13); natural immunity preference (adjusted OR 5.8, 95% CI 4.5–8.3); media misrepresentation (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.4); and getting COVID‐19 from the vaccine (adjusted OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1). Conclusion COVID‐19 vaccine safety and side‐effects concerns impact nurses' intentions to accept the vaccine and may result in low acceptance rates. Urgent action is needed to address these fears and raise confidence, as nurses' vaccine‐related decisions can affect the public's vaccine acceptance.

No abstract

This study was conducted to determine the point prevalence of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis in the West Bank, Palestine. As part of this study, the following parameters were studied: District, gender, age and presumed cause. This cross-sectional study was undertaken during the period 26-30 December 2010 at all dialysis units in the West Bank, and included all cases of ESRD on dialysis. The total prevalence of patients with ESRD on dialysis during the study period was 240.3 per million population (PMP). The highest prevalence was seen in Jericho city. There were 57.7% males and 42.4% females in the study. The majority of patients (62.3%) were living in villages, while 28.8% were living in cities and 8.9% were living in refugee camps. Most of the patients (45%) were aged between 45 and 64 years. The vast majority of patients were either diabetic (22.5%) or hypertensive (11.1%) or both at the same time (10.6%). There were a considerable number of patients in whom the cause was undetermined (27.6%). The majority of recorded cases of congenital causes were from the Hebron, Jenin and Tubas districts. The prevalence of ESRD noted in our study is comparable with other regional countries but far below the rate recorded in industrialized countries. In the Palestinian territories, there is a general lack of national statistics and surveys, particularly in the public health section. Increased efforts and awareness should be focused on the prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus and hypertension as they are the main causes of ESRD. There should also be an additional enhancement and implementation of strategies for the registration of data in order to conduct periodic comparisons and analytical studies to improve the management and quality of life of ESRD patients.

Background. In our clinical practice, conventional radial access has been employed routinely for coronary procedures. The distal radial artery (DRA) access site has recently emerged as a novel technique in cardiac procedures. Objectives. This study compares distal radial access to standard forearm radial access (FRA) in terms of feasibility, outcomes, and complications. Method. This prospective, randomized trial was conducted at a single center. The patients were chosen from An-Najah National University Hospital’s catheterization laboratory between December 2019 and November 2020. A total of 209 patients were randomized into two groups: DRA group (n = 104) and FRA group (n = 105). Results. Access was successful in 98% of patients in both the groups. The DRA group had a longer puncture duration and a higher number of attempts (duration: 56.6 ± 61.1 s DRA vs. 20.0 ± 18.4 s FRA, p < 0.001 , attempts: 1.9 ± 1.3 DRA vs. 1.2 ± 0.60 FRA, p < 0.001 ). Puncture-associated pain was greater in the DRA group (4 ± 2.2 DRA vs. 3 ± 2.1 FRA, p = 0.001 ). There were two radial artery occlusions in the FRA group and none in the DRA group ( p = 0.139 ). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 26% of the DRA group and 37.1% of the FRA group. The DRA group had significantly shorter procedure times ( p = 0.006 ), fluoroscopy times ( p = 0.002 ), and hemostasis times ( p = 0.002 ). Over time, the learning curve demonstrated improved puncture duration and a decrease in the number of puncture attempts. Conclusions. DRA is a safe and practical alternative to FRA for coronary angiography and intervention. The overtime learning curve is expected to improve puncture-related outcomes.

BackgroundThe Hepatitis B (HB) infection is a significant health problem in Palestine, which is categorized as an HB virus moderate endemic area, with the HB carrier rate ranging from 2-6%. The aim of this study is to determine the risk factors of Hepatitis transmission in the northern areas of Palestine in order to help prevent and control this prevalent health problem.MethodsA case–control study was implemented to achieve the study objectives. One hundred HB virus seropositive cases and another 100 seronegative controls were included in the study. Univariate analysis and a logistic regression model were performed to examine probable risk factors of acquisition of HB infections.ResultsUnivariate analysis showed that HB case-patients were more likely to report having a history of blood transfusion, dental visits, hospitalization, Hejamat, sharing shaving equipments, intravenous drug use, or living abroad than controls were. The logistic regression model revealed a history of dental visits to be the most significant risk factor, (P value <0.001, OR 5.6; 95% CI 2.8-11.1).ConclusionThe presence of these risk factors emphasizes the need for both increasing the uptake of HB vaccine and implementing risk-targeted public health education. Development and enforcement of appropriate infection control guidelines for dental care services are important to prevent HB virus transmission as well.