ABSTRACT
Healthcare workers (HCWs) were the first population group offered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in South Africa because they were considered to be at higher risk of infection and required protecting as they were a critical resource to the health system. In some contexts, vaccine uptake among HCWs has been slow, with several studies citing persistent concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. This study aimed to determine vaccine uptake among HCWs in South Africa whilst identifying what drives vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. We adopted a multimethod approach, utilising both a survey and in-depth interviews amongst a sample of HCWs in South Africa. In a sample of 7763 HCWS, 89% were vaccinated, with hesitancy highest among younger HCWs, males, and those working in the private sector. Among those who were hesitant, consistent with the literature, HCWs raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Examining this further, our data revealed that safety and effectiveness concerns were formed due to first-hand witnessing of patients presenting with side-effects, concern over perceived lack of scientific rigor in developing the vaccine, confidence in the body's immune system to stave off serious illness, and both a general lack of information and distrust in the available sources of information. This study, through discursive narratives, provides evidence elucidating what drives safety and effectiveness concerns raised by HCWs. These concerns will need to be addressed if HCWs are to effectively communicate and influence public behaviour. HCWs are key role players in the national COVID-19 vaccination programme, making it critical for this workforce to be well trained, knowledgeable, and confident if they are going to improve the uptake of vaccines among the general population in South Africa, which currently remains suboptimal.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed examin the factors associated with the uptake and non-acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. We used a mixed-methods design with data from a web-based self-administered survey followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) with selected participants. Of the 6235 HCWs included in our analysis who had fully vaccinated, 3470 (56%) had taken their booster dose with a further 17% intending to get the booster. HCWs aged 35 to 49 years (OR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.15-1.46]), and those aged 50 years or older (OR = 2.66 [95% CI: 2.32-3.05]) were more likely to get the booster dose. Females were less likely to have received the booster dose (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79-0.98]) with doctors more likely (OR = 1.58 [95% CI: 1.35-1.84]) than Nurses to have received the booster dose. HCWs in direct contact with patients (OR = 1.17 [95% CI: 1.00-1.38]) and who had previously received a flu vaccine (OR = 1.99 [95% CI: 1.56-2.55]) were more likely to have received the booster dose. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis: (1) Vaccination as routine practice among HCWs; (2) Emergence of new COVID-19 variants necessitating vaccine boosters; (3) Fear of potential side-effects; and (4) Limited value of COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Some HCWs broadly accepted the value of vaccination, and believed that boosters were necessary to effectively combat emergent new virus strains, which contrasted with peers who believed that boosters offered little defence against virus mutations. Fear prohibited some HCWs from getting the booster, with some having experienced adverse side effects from their initial vaccination, whilst others were concerned about future complications. Waning booster uptake rates could be arrested through invigorated communication strategies, while effective evidence-based training can potentially create positive normative vaccination practices amongst HCWs.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students' perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used-an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)-targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine's effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (ß = -3.72, 95% CI = -4.39 to -3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (ß = -1.00, 95% CI = -1.42 to -0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (ß = -2.35, 95% CI = -2.85 to -1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (ß = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students.
ABSTRACT
Recent articles have highlighted the importance of incorporating implementation science concepts into pandemic-related research. However, limited research has been documented to date regarding implementation outcomes that may be unique to COVID-19 vaccinations and how to utilize implementation strategies to address vaccine program-related implementation challenges. To address these gaps, we formed a global COVID-19 implementation workgroup of implementation scientists who met weekly for over a year to review the available literature and learn about ongoing research during the pandemic. We developed a hierarchy to prioritize the applicability of "lessons learned" from the vaccination-related implementation literature. We identified applications of existing implementation outcomes as well as identified additional implementation outcomes. We also mapped implementation strategies to those outcomes. Our efforts provide rationale for the utility of using implementation outcomes in pandemic-related research. Furthermore, we identified three additional implementation outcomes: availability, health equity, and scale-up. Results include a list of COVID-19 relevant implementation strategies mapped to the implementation outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle collisions and pedestrian injuries in areas where schools are located are public health problems in Durban. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of traffic calming humps on the number and severity of incidences of collisions and injuries in the Chatsworth and KwaMashu residential areas of the eThekwini Municipality. METHODS: The evaluation used an observational interrupted time-series study design, with data obtained from the eThekwini Traffic Authority for roads constituting the routes to 34 schools for 2 years prior to and following the implementation of road humps (excluding the intervening year of implementation). A non-probability convenience sample of 19 schools with 39 roads in Chatsworth and 15 schools with 24 roads in KwaMashu was selected. RESULTS: The traffic calming humps improved safety in both areas with respect to the severity of collisions. Serious pedestrian-vehicle collisions (PVCs) dropped by 23% and 22%, while fatal collisions decreased by 68% and 50% in Chatsworth and KwaMashu, respectively. The median annual PVC rate/km of road/year decreased from 1.41 to 0.96 (p=0.007) and from 2.35 to 1.40 (p<0.001) in Chatsworth and KwaMashu, respectively. There was a 1.6% reduction in the median number of fatal or serious PVCs after implementation in Chatsworth (p=0.03) while in KwaMashu, although the number of collisions decreased, the median number increased by 9% (p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Traffic calming has been shown to be effective in reducing the number of PVCs but needs to be supported by additional measures to further improve the safety of pedestrians.