Perceptions and predictors of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine

BackgroundThe control of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may be dependent on widespread receipt of an effective vaccine. It is important to understand patient health-related behaviors and perceptions to guide public health vaccination strategies.ObjectivesTo examine perceptions of COVID-19 and vaccination beliefs, and identify predictors of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in the US.MethodsA cross-sectional, web-based survey guided by the Health Belief Model was conducted using a web-based Qualtrics survey panel of US adults. The main outcome was the intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine if offered. Additional measures included: demographics, perceptions of COVID-19 severity, risk and susceptibility, views of a potential COVID-19 vaccine, virus and vaccine information sources, vaccine beliefs and behaviors, and seasonal flu vaccine history.ResultsA total of 1047 complete responses were included. Females had lower odds of intending to receive the COVID-19 vaccine than males (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.80). Those with a two-year degree/some college had lower odds of intending to receive the COVID-19 vaccine compared to those with a high school degree/GED (AOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36–0.97). Respondents who perceived the severity of the virus to be higher, perceived a greater COVID-19 vaccine benefit, and perceived greater general vaccine benefits had higher odds of intending to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.09–1.91; AOR = 2.82, 95% CI: 2.24–3.56; AOR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.41–2.21, respectively).ConclusionsIn this study, intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine varied across demographics, perceived virus severity, COVID-19 vaccine and general vaccine beliefs. Successful implementation of a COVID-19 immunization strategy by healthcare providers and public health officials will need to incorporate diverse COVID-19 vaccination education strategies tailored to patients' health beliefs.     

Factors associated with preventive behaviors of COVID-19 among adolescents: Applying the health belief model

BackgroundThe emergence of a new pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a unique challenge for public health (all age and sex groups).ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the adolescents’ perceptions of preventive behaviors to avoid COVID-19 disease based on the health belief model (HBM).MethodThis cross-sectional study was conducted on 797adolescents (aged between 12 and 18 years old), who were 7th-12th -grade students of 24 randomly selected schools from 28th May to June 28, 2020 in Isfahan, Iran. An online self-administered questionnaire was adapted to measure the adolescents’ perceived threats, barriers, benefits, self-efficacy, and cues to action toward protective behaviors.ResultsFindings indicated that the adolescents' mean age was 14.7 (SD = 1.7) and 53.7% of them were female. Regardless of gender difference, there was a significant positive correlation between the adolescents' protective behaviors and their self-efficacy (r = 0.62, P < 0.001), perceived benefit (r = 29, P < 0.001), and perceived severity (r = 0.15, P < 0.001), while there was a significant negative correlation between the adolescents’ protective behaviors and their perceived susceptibility (r = −0.11, P < 0.001), as well as their perceived barrier (r = −0.21, P < 0.001). The result of the Hierarchical regression analysis also revealed that the HBM model had a significant predictive power for preventing measures towards coronavirus disease in adolescents (Adj R² = 0.46, p < 0.001). The results also showed that self-efficacy was the strongest predictor (β = 0.59, P < 0.001) in explaining protective behaviors in adolescents.ConclusionIn the context of coronavirus disease pandemic in adolescents, the health belief model could provide a useful framework for planners to develop educational programs. Moreover, in such a context, strategies to promote self-efficacy in adolescents should be considered more carefully to help them improve their protective behaviors.     

Assessment of quality of work life (QWL) among healthcare staff of intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency unit during COVID-19 outbreak using WHOQoL-BREF

ObjectiveThe study aimed to document the quality of work life (QWL) among healthcare staff of intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency units during COVID-19 outbreak using the WHOQoL-BREF.MethodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted for two months (May – June 2020) among healthcare staff working in intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency units of the hospitals under the National Guard Health Authority (NGHA) across five cities of Saudi Arabia. The study used the WHOQoL-BREF instrument to document the QWL through an electronic institutional survey. The data was analyzed through IBM SPSS version 23. The study was approved by an ethics committee.ResultsA total of 290 healthcare professionals responded to the survey. The mean overall quality of life score was 3.37 ± 0.97, general health = 3.66 ± 0.88, domains, i.e., physical = 11.67 ± 2.16, psychological = 13.08 ± 2.14, social = 13.22 ± 3.31 and environment = 12.38 ± 2.59. Respondents aged > 40 years, male gender, married status, being a physician and, having a work experience > 15 years and no extra working hours, had higher mean scores for several domains of Quality of life (QoL), overall QoL and general health (p < 0.05).ConclusionThe QWL among healthcare staff during COVID-19 pandemic was low. Demographic factors were mainly the determinants for a higher QWL while the variable of extra working hours was a determinant of lower QWL. Despite the pandemic, no COVID-19 related variables affected the work life of healthcare staff.     

The relationship between hydroxychloroquine plasma concentration and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Saudi Arabia

BackgroundThe drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has been repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. This study aims to determine whether HCQ concentration levels in individuals with RA alter the incidence of COVID-19 or its complications.MethodsWe collected plasma samples from 13 individuals with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to measure HCQ concentration levels. The study included individuals at least 18 years old who had been taking HCQ for at least six months at daily doses ranging from 200 to 400 mg.ResultsThe study enrolled a total of 13 RA patients. All patients were chronic HCQ users. Among the 13 patients, 7 patients were receiving HCQ at a dose of 200 mg per day, and 6 patients were receiving HCQ at a dose of 400 mg per day. COVID-19 confirmed cases accounted for approximately 46% of all patients. Half of the infected patients (n = 3) were taking a daily dose of 200 mg daily, while the other half were taking 400 mg daily. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from mild to moderate, and the intensity of the symptoms was not severe enough to necessitate hospitalization. COVID-19 symptoms in RA patients included headache, fever, fatigue, dry cough, and loss of taste or smell.ConclusionsOur findings indicated that there was no correlation between HCQ concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis patients and the occurrence of COVID-19 or its complications.     

Applying two behavioral theories to predict the willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine booster in the elderly: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 vaccination booster can effectively protect the elderly from infection while also lowering the risk of serious illness and death. However, barriers remain in willingness of the elderly to boost vaccination.ObjectiveUsing the protection motivation theory (PMT) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB), to study the factors that influence willingness of the elderly to get the COVID-19 vaccine booster.MethodsThe elderly who visited three randomly selected medical institutions in Nanjing's core urban region between March and April 2022 were chosen as study participants. A face-to-face survey was conducted using purposeful sampling and a self-designed questionnaire. The questionnaire contained sociodemographic characteristics, the elderly's willingness to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine booster, and psychosocial cognitive components based on the PMT and TPB. SmartPLS 3.0 was used to conduct structural equation modeling.Results214 participants were included in the analysis. The combined model of the two behavioral theories explained the willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccine booster well with R² of 0.490. Self-efficacy (β = 0.315) was the strongest predictor of vaccine booster willingness. Subjective norms (β = 0.160), perceived severity (β = 0.157), and perceived vulnerability (β = 0.159) also showed positive effects on vaccine booster willingness, while response cost (β = ?0.143) had a negative effect on the willingness. No significant association between attitudes, response efficacy and the willingness was discovered.ConclusionThe willingness of the elderly to receive the COVID-19 vaccine booster was affected by psychosocial cognitive factors. This study supports the applicability of the PMT and TPB models to interpret the willingness of the elderly in such areas.     

Mental health,burnout and resilience in community pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe study aimed to assess burnout, resilience, and levels of depression, anxiety, stress and fear among community pharmacists during the pandemic, and examine if fear of COVID-19 is associated with these outcomes of interest.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists in Qatar was conducted. Pharmacists’ burnout was measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory: Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel (MBI-HSS? for MP-Mindgarden). Resilience was assessed using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10). Depression, anxiety, and stress were measured by the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Fear of COVID-19 was assessed by the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S).Results256 respondents completed the survey and were included in the final study analysis (response rate: 42.7%). Overall, participants reported a moderate level of burnout as illustrated in the mean scores of the three burnout dimensions; 20.54 (SD = 12.37) for emotional exhaustion, 6.76 (SD = 6.22) for depersonalization, and 36.57 (SD = 9.95) for personal accomplishment. Moreover, depression, anxiety and stress were reported by 44.8%, 53.2% and 25.4% of particiants respectively. Participants had shown moderate resilience (mean score: 27.64 (SD = 8.31)) and their mean score fear of COVID19 was 15.67 (SD = 6.54). Fear of COVID-19 was a statistically significant and an independent predictor of depression, anxiety, and stress levels.ConclusionsThe pharmacists experienced moderate burnout but moderate resilience, which indicates their potential to overcome difficulties. Future interventions at the personal, national and organizational levels are required to enhance the pharmacists’ wellbeing by decreasing stress, improving self-efficacy and resilience, and preventing burnout.     

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study

BackgroundOseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance.ResultsA total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: −0.84, 95%CI: (−1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: −0.27, 95% CI: [−0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality.ConclusionOseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.     

Neutrophil to CD4+ lymphocyte ratio as a potential biomarker in predicting virus negative conversion time in COVID-19

BackgroundSince December 2019, novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)-infected pneumonia (COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, and rapidly spread throughout China. Our study aimed to evaluate the robustness of neutrophil to CD4+ lymphocyte ratio (NCD4LR) in predicting the negative conversion time (NCT) of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients.MethodsUnivariate and multivariate analysis were conducted to evaluate the independency of NCD4LR in predicting NCT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy.ResultsCompared with low NCD4LR patients, patients with high NCD4LR had an older age; higher incidence of fever, fatigue, chest distress/breath shortness, severer disease assessment on admission; higher levels of inflammatory indicators; low levels of lymphocyte subsets, and a longer NCT. Multivariate analysis also identified NCD4LR as an independent risk factor for delayed NCT. ROC analysis showed that NCD4LR had a better performance than neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in predicting the virus negative conversion within 2 weeks (AUC = 0.772), 3 weeks (AUC = 0.710), 4 weeks (AUC = 0.728), or 5 weeks (AUC = 0.815).ConclusionThis study suggests that NCD4LR is a potential and useful biomarker for predicting the virus negative conversion time in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, due to the NCDLR value is easily calculated, it can be widely used as a clinical biomarker for disease progression and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.     

Health-, medication- and dietary supplement-related behaviors and beliefs relatively unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown

BackgroundThe lockdown imposed to counter the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evoked an unprecedented phenomenon that could affect health behaviors and beliefs.ObjectiveTo examine how medication-, dietary supplement- and health-related behaviors, beliefs and other psychological constructs changed in Polish online health service users during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.MethodsA one-time online survey accessed through a health service website was completed before and during the pandemic lockdown by separate samples of respondents. The survey examined beliefs about medicines and dietary supplements, consumption of dietary supplements, trust and contact with their advertisements, sources of dietary supplement knowledge as well as perceived health, diet, physical activity and smoking, among other things.ResultsThe study included 1560 participants. Most examined outcomes remained unchanged over COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Beliefs that the dietary supplement quality is well controlled became significantly more pronounced during the lockdown (adjusted ratio of estimates 1.16, 95%CI 1.06–1.27, p = 0.001). Fewer people reported having contact with dietary supplement advertisements (adjusted odds ratio 0.59, 95%CI 0.43–0.83, p = 0.002).ConclusionsThe results may help understand some health-related issues associated with COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and may be used to shape aspects of health-related policy.     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.     

Application of the health Belief Model to assess community preventive practices against COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia

BackgroundThe novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has affected hundreds of thousands of people across more than 200 countries. As the pandemic continues, the health agencies, worldwide, are recommending strict preventive practices to avert its transmission at community scale. We sought to predict the behavior of the Saudi population for adopting community preventive practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAn online questionnaire consisting of 22 items pertaining to the Health Belief Model constructs was used to measure the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of contracting COVID-19, along with the perceived benefits and perceived barriers to follow the Ministry of Health’s recommendations. The outcome was assessed by their readiness to be compliant with the community protective measures. Data were analyzed using STATA at significance level of 0.05.ResultsA total of 900 individuals received the online survey link, of which 688 (response rate: 76.4%) respondents consented to participate in the study. The mean age of the respondents was 31.39 (SD = 8.94). Positive associations were observed between perceived susceptibility (Beta: 0.24; p value < 0.001), perceived severity (Beta: 0.16; p value < 0.001), perceived benefits (Beta: 0.41; p value < 0.001), cue to action (Beta: 2.61; p value < 0.001) and the participation in community preventive practices during the pandemic of the COVID-19.ConclusionsHealth belief model's constructs of perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits and cue to action can be adopted to help strengthen COVID-19 limiting behaviors and prevention programs which can delivered through community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia as well as around the world.     

Thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes in moderate COVID-19 patients: A comparative study

BackgroundMany thrombotic complications are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antithrombotic treatments are important for prophylaxis against these thrombotic events.ObjectivesThis study was designed to compare enoxaparin and rivaroxaban as prophylactic anticoagulants in moderate cases of COVID-19 in terms of efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes.MethodsThe study involved 124 patients with moderate COVID-19 (pneumonia without hypoxia) divided into two groups. The first group (G1) comprised 66 patients who received enoxaparin subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg every 12 h until discharge from the hospital. The second group (G2) comprised 58 patients who received oral rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg once daily until discharge from the hospital. The outcomes evaluated in this study were as follows: intermediate care unit (IMCU) duration, the number of patients transferred from the IMCU to the intensive care unit (ICU), ICU duration, the total length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and thrombotic and bleeding complications.ResultsNo significant differences in IMCU duration (p = 0.39), ICU duration (p = 0.96), and total length of hospital stay (p = 0.73) were observed between the two groups. The percentage of patients requiring ICU admission after hospitalization was 21.2% in G1 and 22.4% in G2 (p = 0.87). The mortality rate was 12.1% in G1 and 10.3% in G2 (p = 0.76). The proportion of patients who had thrombotic complications was 9.1% in G1 and 12.1% in G2 (p = 0.59). The incidence of mild bleeding was 3% in G1 and 1.7% in G2 (p = 0.64).ConclusionEither enoxaparin or rivaroxaban may be used as thromboprophylaxis agents in managing patients with moderate COVID-19. Either medication has no clear advantage over the other.     

The pill of recovery; Molnupiravir for treatment of COVID-19 patients; a systematic review

BackgroundThroughout the time of the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 virus, there has been a compelling necessity for the development of effective antiviral agents and prophylactic vaccines to limit the virus spread, disease burden, hospitalization, and mortality. Until mid of 2021, the NIH treatment guideline declared no single oral therapy was proven to treat mild to moderate cases. A new hope arose when a repurposed direct acting oral anti-viral agent “Molnupiravir” was shown to be effective in decreasing mortality and need for hospitalization in mild to moderate cases with relatively good safety profile; exhibiting a significant reduction in virus titers only after two days from administration. Molnupiravir recently granted the FDA emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 patients with at least one risk factor for progression.MethodsWe performed a computer-based literature search of (PubMed, Science direct, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, Cochrane COVID study register, EU registry, and CTRI registry) till February 15th, 2022. The following keywords were used in our search (“Molnupiravir”, “NHC”, “EIDD-2807”, “MK-4482” or “EIDD-1931”).ResultsWe identified from the initial search a total of 279 articles; 246 articles (BioRxiv and MedRxiv N = 186, PubMed N = 33, Science direct N = 27) and 33 Clinical trials from the following registries (ISCTRN (N = 1), Clinical Trials.gov (N = 6), CTRI (N = 12), Cochrane (N = 14)). Through screening phases, 21 records were removed as duplicates and 198 irrelevant records were also excluded. The included studies in this systematic review were (N = 60) included 39 published papers and 21 clinical trials. After Manual addition (N = 4), the qualitative assessment included (N = 64).ConclusionBased on the cumulative evidence from preclinical and clinical studies, Molnupiravir is proven to be a well tolerated, direct acting oral anti-viral agent to halt the disease progression in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases; in terms of mortality and hospitalization rates.