Suchergebnisse

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

Background: The number of COVID-19 cases in Indonesia continues to rise. The roles and responsibilities of healthcare workers are crucial in the battle of the COVID-19. Objective: This study aimed to explore the experience of healthcare workers in combatting COVID-19 in some parts of Indonesia. Methods: This study employed a descriptive qualitative study design. Online semi-structured interviews were conducted in April 2020 among thirteen participants who were purposively selected. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Eight themes emerged from data, including lack of personal protective equipment, lack of referral hospitals and limited facilities, dealing with patients with unknown status, feeling worried about getting infected or being a source of viral transmission, being creative, too long shift and fatigue, being surrender to God, and government issues. Conclusion: Findings of this study could be used as the input for the government, healthcare workers, and the general population in combatting COVID-19.

RETRACTION: F. T. Temurov, A. A. Musaeva, S. G. Masadikov, S. A. Allabergenov, and S. A. Abdukadirov, "Nosological Approaches in Studying the Incidence Rate Among Dental Healthcare Workers," World Medical & Health Policy (Early View): https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.610.The above article, published online on 15 April 2024, in Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor in Chief, Daniel Skinner, the Policy Studies Organization, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. A third party notified the journal of concerns regarding numerous misreported and irrelevant citations in the above article. In coordination with the editors, the publisher contacted the authors regarding the concerns and the authors provided a response. Further investigation found that several citations were not relevant to the study and that data were often misreported from those cited articles. The authors did not provide a compelling reason for inclusion of a majority of the erroneous citations. The editors have determined that the misreported data fundamentally compromise the conclusions of the article. Therefore, the article must be retracted. The authors disagree with the retraction.

Purpose
Sickness absence is a major concern for healthcare services and their employees with healthcare workers having higher sickness absence rates compared to the general population. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review randomised control trials (RCTs) that aimed to reduce sickness absence among healthcare workers.


Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review was conducted that aimed to include RCTs with study participants who were employed in any part of the healthcare sector. This review included any type of intervention with the primary outcome measure being sickness absence.


Findings
Seven studies were included in the review and consisted of one exercise-only intervention, three multicomponent intervention programmes, two influenza vaccination interventions and one process consultation. Three studies (exercise-only, one multicomponent intervention programme and one influenza vaccination intervention) were able to demonstrate a reduction in sickness absence compared to control.


Research limitations/implications
Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, this review identified that there are currently no interventions that healthcare organisations are able to use to effectively reduce sickness absence among their employees. This review also highlights the importance of a standardised measure of sickness absence for healthcare staff, such as shifts.


Originality/value
To the authors' knowledge, this is the first systematic review to synthesise such evidence among healthcare workers.

Background: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to rising death tolls and stressed healthcare systems, resulting in an unprecedented psychological stress on healthcare workers worldwide. However, the majority of studies only accounted for frontline healthcare workers with direct patient exposure. Aim: This study aims to look at the psychological impact of COVID-19 in a specific, vulnerable and yet hidden group of healthcare workers, namely laboratory healthcare workers who are at high risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus from handling infected patients' blood samples, in addition to a marked increase in workload. Method: A multicentre study was conducted in Singapore via online questionnaire looking at psychological and physical impact of COVID-19 on laboratory healthcare workers. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Numeric rating scale on fear (NRS) were validated scores used in this study. Data analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software version 23 (IBM Corp). Results: A total of 122 staffs participated and more than half of the cohort experienced mild to severe fear, anxiety and depression. Increase in depression score was also found to be associated with increased physical exhaustion (OR = 6.1, 95% CI 1.4–29.1, p = .02), loss of appetite (OR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.0, p = .02), poor sleep quality (OR = 7.5, 95% CI 2.9–19.4, p = .005), and the use of sedative (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.1–13.5, p = .03). Conclusions: Hence, it is imperative that prompt action needs to be taken to address the psychological needs of this vulnerable group of healthcare workers as the pandemic continues.

Workplace violence (WPV) has become a global safety and health concern in recent times particularly in the healthcare sector. In addition, low levels of organisational safety climate (OSC) have been associated with higher occurrence of occupational related health outcomes. Hence, the objective of this study was to determine the association between organisational safety climate and workplace violence among government primary healthcare workers. A cross-sectional study among a stratified random sample of 838 primary healthcare workers (HCW) from the nine district health offices under the Selangor state health department. Two standardized self-administered questionnaires were used to obtain data on WPV and OSC. Logistic regression models used to estimate the association between OSC and WPV. Prevalence of WPV was 68.5% whereby verbal abuse was the most common type (65%) followed by bullying (27%), physical violence (6%) and sexual harassment (2%). Nurses (29.7%) were the most affected by WPV. The main perpetrators were relatives of patients (38%). Low level of OSC was also associated with WPV (OR=3.04, 95% CI=1.45-6.41). The results of this study confirmed that safety climate is associated with WPV. Hence, interventions and efforts to prevent WPV among HCW should also include improving organizational safety factors.

BACKGROUND: Our study sought to determine the frequency of Needlestick injuries (NSIs) among Healthcare Workers (HCWs) working at governmental hospital and to study the factors that associated with occurrence of NSIs, and to develop recommendations for a comprehensive program for prevention. METHODS: Retrospective study of all reported cases of NSIs in the period from April 2016 to May 2018 among healthcare workers at a governmental hospital. RESULTS: Incidence of NSIs over 26 months was 8.4% among all participants. Nurses were the most affected staff (52.5%) resulted commonly from disposing syringes (58.9%). In contrast, the incidence of NSIs among physicians was 24.9% where surgical devices were the primary source of NSIs among them (40%). Failure to complete all required hepatitis B vaccination was common among expatriates of the participants of this study. CONCLUSIONS: NSIs was common among HCWs participated in this study. Preventive measures should be implemented including adequate hepatitis B immunization.

Concern is growing about financial stress among U.S. workers, many of whom experience financial insecurity (FIS) as they struggle to make ends meet, manage debt, and save. Benefits comprise almost a third of total compensation and affects hiring and retention, which is important with respect to the shortage of frontline healthcare workers (FHWs). We present results from a survey of 2321 FHWs, finding that FHWs without college degrees and working in home health and private duty settings have lower access to benefits and greater FIS compared to those with college degrees and who work in facility-based settings. Among all FHWs, access to benefits has a strong association with FIS, even while controlling for income. Our findings suggest that employers consider improving benefits to help address FIS and within healthcare, address issues of compensation equity based on educational attainment. Still, addressing worker FIS may take strengthening the public social safety net.

INTRODUCTION: Availability and accessibility of a safe COVID-19 vaccine do not necessarily guarantee an effective means to mitigate the pandemic. However, the fragile hero's or health care worker's attitude toward the vaccine is of paramount importance to promote its acceptance. So, the current review aims to provide the latest assessment of healthcare workers' attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccination and its contributing factor worldwide. METHODS: Peer-reviewed surveys in English indexed via an electronic database in Google Scholar, Science Direct and PubMed were systematically searched. The review was carried out per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-2009) and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021265534). RESULTS: Originally 8039 articles were searched from three databases PubMed, Science direct, and Google scholar. Finally, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and made the root for the estimates of the attitude of COVID -19 vaccinations. In about two-thirds of the studies, respondents showed a positive attitude (≥50%) toward COVID-19 vaccination. However, in about one-quarter of the studies, a negative attitude (<50%) against vaccination was reported. Factors related to the attitude of healthcare workers toward COVID-19 vaccination include age, sex, profession, concerns about the safety of vaccines and fear of COVID-19, trust in the accuracy of the measures taken by the government, flu vaccination during the previous season, comorbid chronic illness, history of recommendation, and depression symptoms in the past week. CONCLUSION: Although most studies report that healthcare workers have a positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination, quite a few surveys mention negative attitudes towards the use of vaccines, which may reflect missed opportunities or challenges for the international efforts aimed at mitigating the pandemic. Still, we need to continue to make more efforts to change the attitudes of the uncertain healthcare workers to increase the uptake of the ...

Providing appropriate immunization information during the perinatal period is important for improving immunization rates among infants and children; however, the distribution of immunization information by healthcare workers (HCWs) is not standardized in Japan. We investigated HCWs' attitudes toward childhood immunization and factors related to vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive survey of HCWs involved in childhood immunization in Niigata City, Japan, from November 2017 to January 2018. We assessed contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences. Of 290 HCWs, 139 (47.9%) returned completed questionnaires. Most HCWs (87/139, 64.9%) reported providing immunization information verbally to parents; 51/87 (58.6%) spent fewer than five minutes doing so. Pediatricians provided vaccines based on the parents' best interest, whereas public health nurses and midwives emphasized government policy. Nurses had greater hesitancy related to personal perceptions and social/peer factors than pediatricians (p < 0.001). Nurses were significantly more likely than pediatricians to suggest that children receive more shots than necessary (p < 0.01). Nurses tended to have more negative attitudes toward vaccination and little awareness of immunization promotion compared to pediatricians. Thus, all HCWs involved in childhood immunization should receive sufficient information to provide timely and appropriate immunization to infants and children.

Mohammedamin Hajure,1 Mandaras Tariku,2 Firomsa Bekele,3 Zakir Abdu,1 Aman Dule,1 Mustefa Mohammedhussein,1 Tesfaye Tsegaye3 1Department of Psychiatry, College of Health Science, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia; 2Department of Psychiatry, College of Health and Medical Science, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia; 3Department of Pharmacy, College of Health Science, Mettu University, Mettu, EthiopiaCorrespondence: Mohammedamin HajureDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Health Sciences, Mettu University, PO Box: 381, Mettu, EthiopiaTel +251-913596045Email sikoado340@gmail.comIntroduction: Availability and accessibility of a safe COVID-19 vaccine do not necessarily guarantee an effective means to mitigate the pandemic. However, the fragile hero's or health care worker's attitude toward the vaccine is of paramount importance to promote its acceptance. So, the current review aims to provide the latest assessment of healthcare workers' attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccination and its contributing factor worldwide.Methods: Peer-reviewed surveys in English indexed via an electronic database in Google Scholar, Science Direct and PubMed were systematically searched. The review was carried out per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-2009) and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021265534).Results: Originally 8039 articles were searched from three databases PubMed, Science direct, and Google scholar. Finally, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and made the root for the estimates of the attitude of COVID -19 vaccinations. In about two-thirds of the studies, respondents showed a positive attitude (≥ 50%) toward COVID-19 vaccination. However, in about one-quarter of the studies, a negative attitude (< 50%) against vaccination was reported. Factors related to the attitude of healthcare workers toward COVID-19 vaccination include age, sex, profession, concerns about the safety of vaccines and fear of COVID-19, trust in the accuracy of the measures taken by the government, flu vaccination during the previous season, comorbid chronic illness, history of recommendation, and depression symptoms in the past week.Conclusion: Although most studies report that healthcare workers have a positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination, quite a few surveys mention negative attitudes towards the use of vaccines, which may reflect missed opportunities or challenges for the international efforts aimed at mitigating the pandemic. Still, we need to continue to make more efforts to change the attitudes of the uncertain healthcare workers to increase the uptake of the vaccine and deal with the multi-faceted impact of infection.Keywords: attitude, SARS-COV-2, vaccination, healthcare workers