Prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults in Europe.

AIM: Differences in levels of vaccine uptake have emerged across Europe, and this may partly be explained by religious beliefs. Our aim is to study the association between religiosity, measured by prayer frequency, and vaccine hesitancy, and to examine how this association varies across European countries and regions. METHODS: This study was based on 42,583 adults aged 50 years and above from 27 European countries in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), waves 1-8, and the 2nd SHARE COVID-19 Survey. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to be vaccine-hesitant when praying 'weekly or less' (odds ratio (OR) 1.32 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.42) or daily (OR 1.78 95 % CI 1.65-1.92). Praying 'weekly or less' was associated with increased vaccine hesitancy in Southern Europe (OR 1.48 95 % CI 1.17-1.87) and Central and Eastern (OR 1.35 95 % CI 1.24-1.47) Europe, while daily praying was associated with vaccine hesitancy in Western (OR 1.77 95 % CI 1.51-2.08), Southern (OR 1.30 95 % CI 1.03-1.64), Central and Eastern (OR 1.89 95 % CI 1.73-2.06) and Northern (OR 2.75 95 % CI 1.54-4.89) Europe. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for an association between daily prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with a consistent pattern across European regions.

Longitudinal changes in mental health following the COVID-19 lockdown: Results from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe.

BACKGROUND: To limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, different restriction measures were implemented aiming to ensure social distancing and isolation. However, it is well known that such measures may lead to adverse effects on mental health. METHODS: Data from 36,478 adults aged 50+ from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe was used to investigate the longitudinal changes in mental health from pre-COVID-19 to during the pandemic (summer 2020), considering national restriction levels across 26 European countries and Israel. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess changes in feeling 'sad or depressed', sleeping problems, and loneliness. RESULTS: Compared with the mental health status before the COVID-19 outbreak, participants had a lower risk of feeling "sad or depressed" (-14.4%) and having sleeping problems (-9.9%), while the risk of feeling lonely slightly increased (1.2%). However, for individuals in countries with high restriction levels, the risk of feeling "sad or depressed" was attenuated and the risk of loneliness was greater compared to countries with low restriction levels. CONCLUSION: Older people felt less depressed and had fewer sleeping problems during the pandemic as compared to before the pandemic, while the risk of loneliness increased slightly. Stricter policy measures attenuated the otherwise positive impact on mental health. Future studies are needed to investigate the long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health.

Evaluation of'the Buddy Study', a peer support program for second victims in healthcare: a survey in two Danish hospital departments.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals involved in adverse events may suffer severe physical and emotional distress in the aftermath. Adequate support is critical to an overall culture of safety for any healthcare institution. This study evaluates a formalised peer support program, 'the Buddy Study', in two Danish university hospital departments. The program consists of a 2-h seminar about second victims and self-selected buddies to provide peer support after adverse events. METHODS: The study design involved a cross-sectional survey comprised of two close-ended questionnaires evaluating the Buddy Study seminar (Q1) and the Buddy Study program (Q2), along with two open-ended questions and three individual interviews for more elaborate answers. RESULTS: Out of the 250 HCPs employed in both departments, 191 midwives, physicians, and nursing assistants completed Q1 and 156 completed Q2. The seminars were evaluated positively; 91.6% were satisfied with the overall content of the seminar, and 69.1% agreed that insight into how other people may react to adverse events has helped them contain their own reactions or emotions. Assessments of having the Buddy Study program in the department or using or being used as a buddy were more diverse, yet overall positive. Three benefits of the program were identified: the program i) has encouraged an open and compassionate culture; ii) has caused attentiveness to the wellbeing of colleagues; and iii) the self-selected buddy relationship has created a safe space for sharing. Additionally, three challenges or shortcomings were identified: i) although peer support is valuable, it should not stand alone; ii) informal peer support is already in place, hence making a formalised system redundant; and iii) the buddy system requires continuous maintenance and visibility. CONCLUSIONS: The overall evaluation of the Buddy Study program was positive, suggesting that this type of formalised peer support may contribute to a rapid and accessible second-victim support program in healthcare institutions. A key principle for the Buddy Study program is that relationships are crucial, and all buddy relationships are based on self-selection. This seems to offer a safe space for health care professionals to share emotional vulnerability and professional insecurity after an adverse event.