Parental intention to vaccinate children against seasonal influenza in the Eastern Mediterranean region: A cross-sectional study using the health belief model.

Seasonal influenza vaccine is the most effective strategy for reducing influenza incidence and severity. Parental decision-making regarding childhood vaccination is influenced by one's vaccine-related beliefs. A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the role of the Health Belief Model (HBM) in predicting parental intention to vaccinate their children against influenza in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). An anonymous online survey was distributed to parents of children aged 6 months to 18 years in 14 EMR countries. Out of the 5964 participants, 28.2% intended to vaccinate their children against influenza. Urban residents (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.35-0.85), decision-making regarding child's health by the father alone (OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.34-0.55) or the mother alone (OR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.65-0.93), having a child with a chronic illness (OR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.38-0.53), reporting high perceived severity, susceptibility, and benefits (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.30-0.40), and cues to action (OR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.39-0.51) were inversely associated with parental unwillingness to vaccinate their children against influenza. While parents with a higher number of children in the household (OR = 1.08, 95%CI:1.03-1.12) and higher perceived barriers (OR = 2.92, 95%CI: 2.56-3.34) showed an increased likelihood of unwillingness to vaccinate their children. Interventions targeting parental beliefs and perceptions are necessary to improve influenza vaccination acceptance and coverage among children.

Examining Audiology Students' Clinical Collaboration Skills When Using Virtual Audiology Cases Aided With No Collaboration, Live Collaboration, and Virtual Collaboration.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine students' ability to use effective clinical collaboration online in a designed scaffolded environment. Three groups were formed to achieve this goal: two control groups (one using no collaboration and one using live, face-to-face collaboration) and one treatment group using virtual collaboration. METHOD: A quasi-experimental design was conducted at two U.S. universities to examine whether there is a significant difference in clinical reasoning skills between three treatment groups using IUP Audiosim software. Two computer-based audiology case simulations were developed, and participants were randomly placed into the three groups. The clinical reasoning data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc analyses. RESULTS: The results indicated that there was a significant difference in clinical reasoning skills between the three treatment groups. The score obtained by the no-collaboration group was significantly less than the scores obtained by the virtual and live collaboration groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results imply that lower scores were associated with students receiving more instructor-designed content and higher scores with students receiving less instructor-designed content. Students who received more scaffolds with the collaborations may have demonstrated better decision-making outside the training exercise than those who did not receive scaffolds. However, lower scores on the exercise did not necessarily imply lower skill. Lower scores simply implied a different path toward mastery.

Healthcare Utilization with Drug Acquisition and Expenses at the National Health Insurance Fund in Sudan.

Background: Understanding the pattern of care use can provide valuable information for reform interventions. This study investigates the pattern of healthcare utilization and its association with drug acquisition patterns and expenses in the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) of Al Jazira State in Sudan. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at NHIF primary healthcare centers of Al Jazirah state in Sudan. Results: A total of 768 beneficiaries were interviewed, of which 63.2% reported using out-of-network physician care, while 36.8% receive care from the NHIF physician network only. More than half (60.8%) of NHIF-interviewed clients reported a heavy burden of medication costs. The pattern of physician utilization was significantly associated with the number and source of regular drugs, the burden of out-of-pocket payment, and monthly out-of-pocket expenditures on medications, (p < 0.001). The regression analysis revealed that gender, marital status, number of chronic diseases, and number of regular drugs were the significant predictors of the pattern of physician care utilization; these factors explained nearly 36% of the variance in respondents' pattern of physician care utilization. Conclusions: An impressive proportion of out-of-network care was found in Al Jazirah State in Sudan. The NHIF stakeholders should consider medication subsidy as a potential strategy for decreasing patient leakage to out-of-network services.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global health and prompted the need for mass vaccination. We aimed to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent mortality and reduce the risk of developing severe disease after the 1st and 2nd doses. From conception to 28 June 2021, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP, and Google Scholar. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. The pooled vaccine efficacy and effectiveness following vaccination, as well as their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. In total, 22 of the 21,567 screened articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. Mortality 7 and 14 days after full vaccination decreased significantly among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.10, ([95% CI, 0.04-0.27], I2 = 54%) and (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35-0.61], I2 = 0%), respectively. The probability of having severe disease one or two weeks after 2nd dose decreased significantly (OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.19-0.46], I2 = 25%) and (OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.25], I2 = 74%), respectively. The incidence of infection any time after the 1st and 2nd doses diminished significantly (OR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.4], I2 = 100%) and (OR = 0.179 [95% CI, 0.15-0.19], I2 = 98%), respectively. Also, incidence of infection one week after 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.04, [95% CI (0.01-0.2], I2 = 100%). After meta-regression, the type of vaccine and country were the main predictors of outcome [non-mRNA type, ß = 2.99, p = 0.0001; country UK, ß = -0.75, p = 0.038; country USA, ß = 0.8, p = 0.02]. This study showed that most vaccines have comparable effectiveness, and it is purported that mass vaccination may help to end this pandemic.

A Meta-Analysis on the Safety and Immunogenicity of Covid-19 Vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: The presented meta-analysis (MA) aims at identifying the vaccine safety and immunogenicity in published trials about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: All relevant publications were systematically searched and collected from different databases (Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE central/PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), COVID Trial, COVID Inato, Web of Science, ProQuest Thesis, ProQuest Coronavirus Database, SAGE Thesis, Google Scholar, Research Square, and Medxriv) up to January 10, 2021. The pooled vaccine safety and immunogenicity following vaccination in phase 1 and 2 vaccine clinical trials, as well as their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: The predefined inclusion criteria were met in 22 out of 8592 articles. The proportion of anti-severe acute respiratory distress coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody responses after 7 days among 72 vaccinated persons included in 1 study was 81% (95% CI: 70-89), after 14 days among 888 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 80% (95% CI: 58-92), after 28 days among 1589 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 63% (95% CI: 59-67), after 42 days among 478 vaccinated persons included in 5 studies was 93% (95% CI: 80-98), and after 56 days among 432 vaccinated persons included in 2 studies was 93% (95% CI: 83-97). Meta regression explains more than 80% of this heterogeneity, where the main predictors were; the inactivated vaccine type (ß = 2.027, P = 0.0007), measurement of antibodies at week 1 (ß = -4.327, P < 0.0001) and at week 3 of the first dose (ß = -2.02, P = 0.0025). Furthermore, the pooled proportion adverse effects 7 days after vaccination was 0.01 (0.08-0.14) for fever, headache 0.23 (0.19-0.27), fatigue 0.10 (0.07-0.13), and 0.18 (0.14-0.23) for muscle pain. CONCLUSION: Immunogenicity following vaccination ranged from 63% to 93% depending on the time at which the antibody levels were measured.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Social Media Users: A Content Analysis, Multi-Continent Study.

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is defined as a delayed in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services. This multinational study examined user interaction with social media about COVID-19 vaccination. The study analyzed social media comments in 24 countries from five continents. In total, 5856 responses were analyzed; 83.5% of comments were from Facebook, while 16.5% were from Twitter. In Facebook, the overall vaccine acceptance was 40.3%; the lowest acceptance rates were evident in Jordan (8.5%), Oman (15.0%), Senegal (20.0%) and Morocco (20.7%) and the continental acceptance rate was the lowest in North America 22.6%. In Twitter, the overall acceptance rate was (41.5%); the lowest acceptance rate was found in Oman (14.3%), followed by USA (20.5%), and UK (23.3%) and the continental acceptance rate was the lowest in North America (20.5%), and Europe (29.7%). The differences in vaccine acceptance across countries and continents in Facebook and Twitter were statistically significant. Regarding the tone of the comments, in Facebook, countries that had the highest number of serious tone comments were Sweden (90.9%), USA (61.3%), and Thailand (58.8%). At continent level, serious comments were the highest in Asia (58.4%), followed by Africa (46.2%) and South America (46.2%). In Twitter, the highest serious tone was reported in Egypt (72.2%) while at continental level, the highest proportion of serious comments was observed in Asia (59.7%), followed by Europe (46.5%). The differences in tone across countries and continents in Facebook and Twitter and were statistically significant. There was a significant association between the tone and the position of comments. We concluded that the overall vaccine acceptance in social media was relatively low and varied across the studied countries and continents. Consequently, more in-depth studies are required to address causes of such VH and combat infodemics.

Determining the Cutoff Points of the 5C Scale for Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Psychological Antecedents among the Arab Population: A Multinational Study.

BACKGROUND: One of the newly faced challenges during the COVID-19 is vaccine hesitancy (VH). The validated 5C scale, that assesses 5 psychological antecedents of vaccination, could be effective in exploring COVID-19 VH. This study aimed to determine a statistically valid cutoff points for the 5C sub-scales among the Arab population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 446 subjects from 3 Arab countries (Egypt, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan). Information regarding sociodemographics, clinical history, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and 5C scale were collected online. The 5C scores were analyzed to define the cutoff points using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and to verify the capability of the questionnaire to differentiate whether responders are hesitant or non-hesitant to accept vaccination. ROC curve analysis was conducted for previous vaccine administration as a response, with the predictors being the main 5 domains of the 5C questionnaire. The mean score of each sub-scale was compared with COVID-19 vaccine intake. RESULTS: The mean age of the studied population was 37 ± 11, 42.9% were males, 44.8% from Egypt, 21.1% from Jordan, and 33.6% from the UAE. Statistically significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants, respectively, were detected in the median score of confidence [6.0(1.3) versus 4.7(2.0)], complacency [(2.7(2.0) versus 3.0(2.0)], constraints [1.7(1.7) versus 3.7(2.3)], and collective responsibility [6.7(1.7) versus 5.7(1.7)]. The area under the curve of the 5 scales was 0.72, 0.60, 0.76, 0.66, 0.66 for confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility at cutoff values of 5.7, 4.7, 6.0, 6.3, and 6.2, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Arabic validated version of the 5C scale has a good discriminatory power to predict COVID-19 vaccines antecedent.

Arabic validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the 5C scale for assessment of COVID-19 vaccines psychological antecedents.

BACKGROUND: In the Arab countries, there has not been yet a specific validated Arabic questionnaire that can assess the psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine among the general population. This study, therefore, aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the 5C scale into the Arabic language. METHODS: The 5C scale was translated into Arabic by two independent bilingual co-authors, and then translated back into English. After reconciling translation disparities, the final Arabic questionnaire was disseminated into four randomly selected Arabic countries (Egypt, Libya, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia). Data from 350 Arabic speaking adults (aged ≥18 years) were included in the final analysis. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was determined by concurrent, convergent, discriminant, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. RESULTS: Age of participants ranged between 18 to 73 years; 57.14% were females, 37.43% from Egypt, 36.86%, from UAE, 30% were healthcare workers, and 42.8% had the intention to get COVID-19 vaccines. The 5 sub-scales of the questionnaire met the criterion of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.7). The predictors of intention to get COVID-19 vaccines (concurrent validity) were young age and the 5C sub-scales. Convergent validity was identified by the significant inter-item and item-mean score of the sub-scale correlation (P<0.001). Discriminant validity was reported as inter-factor correlation matrix (<0.7). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy measure was 0.80 and Bartlett's sphericity test was highly significant (P<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the 15 items of the questionnaire could be summarized into five factors. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the hypothesized five-factor model of the 15-item questionnaire was satisfied with adequate psychometric properties and fit with observed data (RMSEA = 0.060, GFI = 0.924, CFI = 0.957, TLI = 0.937, SRMR = 0.076 & NFI = 906). CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of the 5C scale is a valid and reliable tool to assess the psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine among Arab population.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as monotherapy or combined with azithromycin in COVID-19 treatment.

Many recent studies have investigated the role of either Chloroquine (CQ) or Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) alone or in combination with azithromycin (AZM) in the management of the emerging coronavirus. This systematic review and meta-analysis of either published or preprint observational studies or randomized control trials (RCT) aimed to assess mortality rate, duration of hospital stay, need for mechanical ventilation (MV), virologic cure rate (VQR), time to a negative viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR), radiological progression, experiencing drug side effects, and clinical worsening. A search of the online database through June 2020 was performed and examined the reference lists of pertinent articles for in-vivo studies only. Pooled relative risks (RRs), standard mean differences of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the random-effects model. Mortality was not different between the standard care (SC) and HCQ groups (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.59, I2 = 82%), meta-regression analysis proved that mortality was significantly different across the studies from different countries. However, mortality among the HCQ + AZM was significantly higher than among the SC (RR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.19-2.27, I2 = 70%). The duration of hospital stay in days was shorter in the SC in comparison with the HCQ group (standard mean difference = 0.57, 95% CI 0.20-0.94, I2 = 92%), or the HCQ + AZM (standard mean difference = 0.77, 95% CI 0.46-1.08, I2 = 81). Overall VQR, and that at days 4, 10, and 14 among patients exposed to HCQ did not differ significantly from the SC [(RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.23, I2 = 67%), (RR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.26-4.69, I2 = 85%), (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.70-2.01, I2 = 95%), and (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.76-1.27, I2 = 85% )] respectively. Exposure to HCQ + AZM did not improve the VQR as well (RR = 3.23, 95% CI 0.70-14.97, I2 = 58%). The need for MV was not significantly different between the SC and HCQ (RR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.78-2.89, I2 = 81%), or HCQ + AZM (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.7-2.13, I2 = 88%). Side effects were more reported in the HCQ group than in the SC (RR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.58-6.24, I2 = 0). Radiological improvement and clinical worsening were not statistically different between HCQ and SC [(RR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.65, I2 = 45%) and (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.33-4.99), I2 = 54%] respectively. Despite the scarcity of published data of good quality, the effectiveness and safety of either HCQ alone or in combination with AZM in treating COVID-19 cannot be assured. Future high-quality RCTs need to be carried out.PROSPERO registration: CRD42020192084.