The Dynamic Relationship between the Intention and Final Decision for the COVID-19 Booster: A Study among Students and Staff at the University of Liège, Belgium.

While many studies have documented the intentions for the COVID-19 vaccine booster, few have explored the change from intention to final decision. This study explores the COVID-19 booster intentions and the change from intention to decision in a primo-vaccinated university population, with a distinction between staff members and students. It looks at the sociodemographic and medical characteristics, health literacy, personal COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and attitudes/intentions regarding the booster, among the 1030 participants (64.4% staff members, 61.3% female, median age 36.0 years). Of the 8.7% who were initially hesitant, 72.7% ultimately got a booster and 27.3% did not. Another 84.2% intended to get a booster and 7.1% did not. Among the latter two groups, 88.9% maintained their intention and 11.1% changed their minds. The determinants associated with the intentions were health literacy and previous intentions regarding the COVID-19 primo-vaccination. The determinants associated with the change to non-vaccination were a previous COVID-19 infection, a past COVID-19 primo-vaccination intention, and a neutralizing antibody level. The results point to an opening for the support in decision-making, with a significant percentage of the study population potentially changing their mind between intention and final decision; this process should start early and be tailored to the individual's COVID-19 history. A personalized approach seems necessary in order to ensure that individuals make an informed choice.

Factors influencing the adoption and participation rate of nursing homes staff in a saliva testing screening programme for COVID-19.

Testing strategies are crucial to prevent and control the spread of covid-19 but suffer from a lack of investment in understanding the human factors that influence their implementation. The aim of this study was to understand the factors that encourage participation and the level of engagement of nursing homes staff in a routine saliva testing programme for COVID-19 In December 2020, nursing homes (n = 571) in Wallonia (Belgium) were invited to participate in a saliva testing programme for their staff. The directors were questioned by telephone at the end of a 3-week pilot phase. 445 nursing homes took part in the evaluation questionnaire, of which 36(8%) answered that they chose not to participate in the testing programme. The average participation rate of nursing staff was 49(±25)%. Perception of the justification of the efforts required for testing and perception of practicability of the procedure were significantly associated with the adoption of the system by the nursing homes directors (OR(95%CI): 5.96(1.97-18.0), p = 0.0016); OR(95%CI): 5.64(1.94-16.4), p = 0.0015 respectively). Staff support, incentives and meetings increased the level of engagement in testing (p<0.05). While the adoption of the programme confirmed the acceptability of salivary testing as a means of screening, the participation rate confirmed the need for studies to understand the factors that encourage health care staff to take part. The results suggested rethinking strategies to consider staff engagement from a health promotion perspective.

Acceptability of Community Saliva Testing in Controlling the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from Two Case Studies in Nursing Homes and Schools.

Current public health debate centers on COVID-19 testing methods and strategies. In some communities, high transmission risk may justify routine testing, and this requires test methods that are safe and efficient for both patients and the administrative or health-care workers administering them. Saliva testing appears to satisfy those criteria. There is, however, little documentation on the acceptability of this method among beneficiaries. This article presents the lessons learned from a pilot study on the use of saliva testing for routine screening of nursing home and secondary school personnel in Wallonia (the French-speaking part of Belgium), conducted in December 2020 to April 2021, respectively. Administrators at the facilities in question seemed to think highly of saliva testing and wished to continue it after the pilot study was over. This result reinforces the criteria (the noninvasive aspect, in particular) supporting a key role for saliva testing in monitoring community spread of the virus. Nevertheless, wider-scale deployment of this particular method will only be possible if the testing strategy as a whole takes a health promotion approach.

University population-based prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity (SARSSURV-ULiège): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For a safe and sustainable return to normal functioning of academic activities in higher education, objective-driven testing strategies that are flexible and rapidly adaptable are essential to effectively monitor and respond to new developments of the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, prospective longitudinal research on SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in saliva and seroprevalence in higher education contexts is substantially lacking, limiting our understanding of COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and nature of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 at various stages of the infection and vaccination. To address this lack of evidence, a prospective population-based cohort study (SARSSURV-ULiège) has recently been started. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Students (n=1396) and staff members (n=1143) of the University of Liège are followed up over more than 1 year. All participants are required to complete anamnestic, clinical and vaccine hesitancy questionnaires for medical histories and undertaken treatments. Previous proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection is also registered. In phase 1, weekly saliva samples to perform RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 and monthly COVID-19 serological rapid test results are collected. Once being positive to either saliva RT-qPCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 presence or to serological test, the participant is invited to enter phase 2. If participants get vaccinated during the study period, they are invited to phase 2. In this second phase, besides weekly saliva self-test, depending on the participants' profiles, both gargle and blood samples are collected to obtain various biological data to measure the presence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, determine the magnitude and the duration of antibody responses over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received the approval from the University Hospital of Liège Ethics Committee (reference number 2021/96, dated 26 March 2021). Potential protocol amendments will be presented to the Research Ethics Committee. The findings of the present study will be presented at scientific conferences and the results published in peer-review publications. Weekly reports will be submitted to the risk assessment group and the risk management group against COVID-19 of the university to enable a timely public health action if necessary.