促使医护人员改变对接种COVID - 19病毒疫苗的犹豫或反对态度及提高疫苗接种率的因素

Ilana Kan
{"title":"促使医护人员改变对接种COVID - 19病毒疫苗的犹豫或反对态度及提高疫苗接种率的因素","authors":"Ilana Kan","doi":"10.33140/jnh.08.03.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although vaccines were found to be effective in preventing and reducing morbidity, the last two decades saw a steep increase in anti-vaccination and vaccine hesitancy [1]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak as pandemic with global economic, political, vocational, and social ramifications. COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe and effective in reducing morbidity rates. Nevertheless, according to the ministry of health only 59% of the Israeli population is vaccinated against COVID-19 [2]. In 2016 the WHO defined vaccine hesitancy as the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines”. Vaccine hesitancy curtails the ability of health services to safely and effectively prevent morbidity and to preserve public health [11]. Results from surveys show that there is little variation in the factors affecting vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers (HCWs) across countries [7]. From December 2020 to March 2021 hospital workers were given the opportunity to vaccinate in the workplace instead of vaccinating through their HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations). To date, most workers had already vaccinated and only 150 remained unvaccinated. 93 (1.6%) of them refuse to vaccinate although they have no medical conditions that preclude vaccination. 190 (3.2%) out of the vaccinated group have done so from April to July 2021 and we shall refer to them as “vaccine hesitants”. The aim of this survey was to determine the underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy and refusal in hospital personnel, in order to better plan interventions. The data was collected by performing a cross-sectional study using anonymous online surveys. After processing and analyzing the data, we are planned future intervention. Methods: The data had been collected using a cross-sectional study by administering an online anonymous questionnaire. After evaluation of the data, an intervention is planned to be developed. Results: The survey was answered by 42 staff members. From them, 22 (52.4%) were late to receive the vaccine, while 20 (47.6%) refused it. No differences were found between the two groups in background variables. There were no significant differences between the two groups in positions regarding the coronavirus. The question with the highest average was related to the belief that “COVID is like a normal flu. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 knowledge sources between the hesitant group and the anti-vaccinationist group. The most prominent knowledge sources were the government and the ministry of health, doctors, information from the press or the hospital, and information from social media. Significant differences were found between the two groups in the feeling that they have sufficient information in selected topics concerning the coronavirus The response averages were higher among the hesitant group than among the anti-vaccinationist group in relation to knowledge about the severity of the disease and side effects of the vaccine.There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motivations for their refusal to vaccinate. The most common motive in both groups was that “I don’t need the vaccine” or that “I am not at risk from the disease”. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motives for their eventual vaccination. The most common reason for vaccination in both groups was “pressures from my superiors at work”. Conclusion: The findings of the present study show that HCWs who are directly involved in treating COVID patients are more likely to vaccinate. We therefore opine that more emphasis should be placed on other sectors of HCWs, such as administration, para-medical professions, and more. It is imperative to understand what are the motivations and characteristics of each sector, and perform appropriate adaptations in propaganda materials according to the sector’s specific needs. We predict that the continuation of experiments showing the effectiveness of the vaccine will increase vaccination rates. A combination of different strategies, such as educational campaigns, the publication of studies, and relevant instruction will increase vaccination rates in hesitants.","PeriodicalId":302843,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing & Healthcare","volume":"197 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Encouraging A Change of Health Care Worker’s Attitudes Who Are Hesitant or Opposed to Receiving A Vaccine Against the COVID 19 Virus and Increasing Vaccination Rate\",\"authors\":\"Ilana Kan\",\"doi\":\"10.33140/jnh.08.03.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although vaccines were found to be effective in preventing and reducing morbidity, the last two decades saw a steep increase in anti-vaccination and vaccine hesitancy [1]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak as pandemic with global economic, political, vocational, and social ramifications. COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe and effective in reducing morbidity rates. Nevertheless, according to the ministry of health only 59% of the Israeli population is vaccinated against COVID-19 [2]. In 2016 the WHO defined vaccine hesitancy as the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines”. Vaccine hesitancy curtails the ability of health services to safely and effectively prevent morbidity and to preserve public health [11]. Results from surveys show that there is little variation in the factors affecting vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers (HCWs) across countries [7]. From December 2020 to March 2021 hospital workers were given the opportunity to vaccinate in the workplace instead of vaccinating through their HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations). To date, most workers had already vaccinated and only 150 remained unvaccinated. 93 (1.6%) of them refuse to vaccinate although they have no medical conditions that preclude vaccination. 190 (3.2%) out of the vaccinated group have done so from April to July 2021 and we shall refer to them as “vaccine hesitants”. The aim of this survey was to determine the underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy and refusal in hospital personnel, in order to better plan interventions. The data was collected by performing a cross-sectional study using anonymous online surveys. After processing and analyzing the data, we are planned future intervention. Methods: The data had been collected using a cross-sectional study by administering an online anonymous questionnaire. After evaluation of the data, an intervention is planned to be developed. Results: The survey was answered by 42 staff members. From them, 22 (52.4%) were late to receive the vaccine, while 20 (47.6%) refused it. No differences were found between the two groups in background variables. There were no significant differences between the two groups in positions regarding the coronavirus. The question with the highest average was related to the belief that “COVID is like a normal flu. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 knowledge sources between the hesitant group and the anti-vaccinationist group. The most prominent knowledge sources were the government and the ministry of health, doctors, information from the press or the hospital, and information from social media. Significant differences were found between the two groups in the feeling that they have sufficient information in selected topics concerning the coronavirus The response averages were higher among the hesitant group than among the anti-vaccinationist group in relation to knowledge about the severity of the disease and side effects of the vaccine.There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motivations for their refusal to vaccinate. The most common motive in both groups was that “I don’t need the vaccine” or that “I am not at risk from the disease”. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motives for their eventual vaccination. The most common reason for vaccination in both groups was “pressures from my superiors at work”. Conclusion: The findings of the present study show that HCWs who are directly involved in treating COVID patients are more likely to vaccinate. We therefore opine that more emphasis should be placed on other sectors of HCWs, such as administration, para-medical professions, and more. It is imperative to understand what are the motivations and characteristics of each sector, and perform appropriate adaptations in propaganda materials according to the sector’s specific needs. We predict that the continuation of experiments showing the effectiveness of the vaccine will increase vaccination rates. A combination of different strategies, such as educational campaigns, the publication of studies, and relevant instruction will increase vaccination rates in hesitants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":302843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing & Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"197 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing & Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33140/jnh.08.03.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing & Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/jnh.08.03.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管人们发现疫苗在预防和降低发病率方面是有效的,但在过去二十年中,反疫苗接种和疫苗犹豫率急剧上升。2020年3月,世界卫生组织(世卫组织)宣布当前的COVID-19疫情为大流行,对全球经济、政治、职业和社会产生影响。COVID-19疫苗被认为是安全有效的,可降低发病率。然而,根据卫生部的数据,只有59%的以色列人口接种了COVID-19疫苗。2016年,世卫组织将疫苗犹豫定义为“尽管有疫苗可用,但不愿或拒绝接种疫苗”。疫苗犹豫削弱了卫生服务安全有效地预防发病率和维护公共卫生的能力。调查结果显示,各国卫生保健工作者(HCWs)中影响疫苗犹豫的因素差异不大[10]。从2020年12月至2021年3月,医院工作人员有机会在工作场所接种疫苗,而不是通过其卫生维护组织接种疫苗。迄今为止,大多数工人已经接种了疫苗,只有150人未接种疫苗。其中93人(1.6%)拒绝接种疫苗,尽管他们没有不能接种疫苗的医疗条件。在2021年4月至7月期间,接种疫苗组中有190人(3.2%)接种了疫苗,我们将其称为"疫苗犹豫者"。这项调查的目的是确定医院工作人员对疫苗犹豫和拒绝的根本原因,以便更好地计划干预措施。数据是通过匿名在线调查进行的横断面研究收集的。在处理和分析数据后,我们计划未来的干预措施。方法:数据收集采用横断面研究管理在线匿名问卷。在对数据进行评估后,计划制定干预措施。结果:共有42名工作人员回答了调查。其中,迟接种22例(52.4%),拒绝接种20例(47.6%)。两组在背景变量上没有发现差异。两组在冠状病毒的立场上没有显着差异。平均值最高的问题与“COVID就像普通流感”的信念有关。犹豫组与反接种组在COVID-19知识来源上无显著差异。最主要的知识来源是政府和卫生部、医生、媒体或医院的信息以及社交媒体的信息。在对有关冠状病毒的选定主题有足够信息的感觉上,两组之间存在显著差异。在对疾病严重程度和疫苗副作用的了解方面,犹豫不决组的平均反应高于反对接种组。在拒绝接种疫苗的动机上,两组之间没有显著差异。两组人中最常见的动机是“我不需要疫苗”或“我没有患这种疾病的风险”。两组人最终接种疫苗的动机没有显著差异。在这两组人中,接种疫苗最常见的原因是“来自上级的工作压力”。结论:本研究结果表明,直接参与治疗COVID患者的医护人员更有可能接种疫苗。因此,我们认为应更加重视卫生保健工作者的其他部门,例如行政管理、辅助医疗专业等。必须了解各部门的动机和特点,并根据各部门的具体需要对宣传材料进行适当调整。我们预计,继续进行显示疫苗有效性的实验将提高疫苗接种率。不同战略的结合,如教育运动、研究报告的发表和相关指导,将提高犹豫不决者的疫苗接种率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Factors Encouraging A Change of Health Care Worker’s Attitudes Who Are Hesitant or Opposed to Receiving A Vaccine Against the COVID 19 Virus and Increasing Vaccination Rate
Background: Although vaccines were found to be effective in preventing and reducing morbidity, the last two decades saw a steep increase in anti-vaccination and vaccine hesitancy [1]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak as pandemic with global economic, political, vocational, and social ramifications. COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe and effective in reducing morbidity rates. Nevertheless, according to the ministry of health only 59% of the Israeli population is vaccinated against COVID-19 [2]. In 2016 the WHO defined vaccine hesitancy as the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines”. Vaccine hesitancy curtails the ability of health services to safely and effectively prevent morbidity and to preserve public health [11]. Results from surveys show that there is little variation in the factors affecting vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers (HCWs) across countries [7]. From December 2020 to March 2021 hospital workers were given the opportunity to vaccinate in the workplace instead of vaccinating through their HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations). To date, most workers had already vaccinated and only 150 remained unvaccinated. 93 (1.6%) of them refuse to vaccinate although they have no medical conditions that preclude vaccination. 190 (3.2%) out of the vaccinated group have done so from April to July 2021 and we shall refer to them as “vaccine hesitants”. The aim of this survey was to determine the underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy and refusal in hospital personnel, in order to better plan interventions. The data was collected by performing a cross-sectional study using anonymous online surveys. After processing and analyzing the data, we are planned future intervention. Methods: The data had been collected using a cross-sectional study by administering an online anonymous questionnaire. After evaluation of the data, an intervention is planned to be developed. Results: The survey was answered by 42 staff members. From them, 22 (52.4%) were late to receive the vaccine, while 20 (47.6%) refused it. No differences were found between the two groups in background variables. There were no significant differences between the two groups in positions regarding the coronavirus. The question with the highest average was related to the belief that “COVID is like a normal flu. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 knowledge sources between the hesitant group and the anti-vaccinationist group. The most prominent knowledge sources were the government and the ministry of health, doctors, information from the press or the hospital, and information from social media. Significant differences were found between the two groups in the feeling that they have sufficient information in selected topics concerning the coronavirus The response averages were higher among the hesitant group than among the anti-vaccinationist group in relation to knowledge about the severity of the disease and side effects of the vaccine.There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motivations for their refusal to vaccinate. The most common motive in both groups was that “I don’t need the vaccine” or that “I am not at risk from the disease”. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the motives for their eventual vaccination. The most common reason for vaccination in both groups was “pressures from my superiors at work”. Conclusion: The findings of the present study show that HCWs who are directly involved in treating COVID patients are more likely to vaccinate. We therefore opine that more emphasis should be placed on other sectors of HCWs, such as administration, para-medical professions, and more. It is imperative to understand what are the motivations and characteristics of each sector, and perform appropriate adaptations in propaganda materials according to the sector’s specific needs. We predict that the continuation of experiments showing the effectiveness of the vaccine will increase vaccination rates. A combination of different strategies, such as educational campaigns, the publication of studies, and relevant instruction will increase vaccination rates in hesitants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring Iot Embedded Systems Along the Line of Identity Access Management for Enhanced Health Data Security The Effect of Psychoactive Substances Used on Clinical Outcomes in Injured Drivers Referred to Emergency Medicine; Case-Control Study A Thorough Study and Meta-Analysis of The Prognostic Relevance of the C-Reactive Protein-Albumin Ratio in Acute Pancreatitis Understanding Pap Smears, HPV, and Preventive Measures in Relation to Cervical Health An Exploration/Investigation of General Practitioners’ and General Practice Nurses’ Opinions on Physical Activity Promotion to their Patients in Ireland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1