ABSTRACT
Background: Language barriers are one of the main obstacles faced by migrants in accessing healthcare services. A compromised communication between migrants and Healthcare Providers in vaccination setting can result in increased vaccine hesitancy and decreased vaccine uptake. The objective of the current study is to investigate Healthcare Providers' perceptions about linguistic barriers faced during both routinary vaccination practice and the extraordinary vaccination program for Ukrainian refugees in the Local Health Authorities of Bologna and Romagna (Italy). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted through the administration of a questionnaire examining Healthcare Providers' perceptions. A descriptive analysis and a multiple logistic regression model were adopted to analyze the collected data. Results: Language barriers resulted as an obstacle to informed consent and to doctor-patient relationship. The strategies adopted were perceived as helpful in increasing vaccination adherence, despite communication difficulties were still experienced during refugees' vaccinations. Results suggest that the implementation of translated material and the use of professional interpreters may represent important strategies to overcome linguistic barriers, along with Healthcare Providers' training. Healthcare Providers' opinions could assist the implementation of new tools capable of countering language barriers. Conclusions: The current study represents an example of providers' involvement in understanding the complexities behind the issue of language barriers in vaccination practice.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Communication Barriers , Refugees , Vaccination , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Male , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Female , Italy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Health Personnel/psychology , Middle Aged , Physician-Patient Relations , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology , Language , Informed ConsentABSTRACT
BackgroundHuman leishmaniasis is a protozoan disease transmitted by sand flies and endemic in the Mediterranean region. In Italy, leishmaniasis is present in the south and the western coastal regions, with an epidemic peak detected in northern Italy in the early 1970s.AimTo examine temporal trends, and demographic, clinical, geographical and environmental features of human leishmaniasis cases recorded by the local health unit (LHU) of Bologna, northern Italy.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we analysed human leishmaniasis cases recorded from 2004 to 2022 within the Bologna LHU. We also conducted serological investigations for canine leishmaniasis in owned dogs living near the place of infection of human cases.ResultsIn total, 173 cases of human leishmaniasis were detected, and 154 cases were considered autochthonous. An increase of human cases was observed since 2004, with incidence peaks above 2 cases/100,000 inhabitants in 2013, 2018 and 2022; epidemic peaks were preceded by dry summers. Most cases lived in the plain and hilly areas less than 400 m above sea level and many resided in isolated housing, in city outskirts, and/or near uncultivated areas, watercourses and railway sections. The incidence of canine leishmaniasis did not increase in the study period.ConclusionAn epidemic of human leishmaniasis with fluctuating annual numbers of cases, probably related to environmental and climatic factors, was identified in the Bologna LHU. Understanding the risk factors and the environmental characteristics related to places of infection is crucial to evaluate the public health implications of leishmaniasis.
Subject(s)
Dog Diseases , Leishmania infantum , Leishmaniasis, Visceral , Leishmaniasis , Psychodidae , Humans , Animals , Dogs , Leishmaniasis, Visceral/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Leishmaniasis/epidemiology , Leishmaniasis/veterinary , Italy/epidemiology , Dog Diseases/epidemiologyABSTRACT
In August 2022, Italy launched a vaccination campaign to combat the spread of the monkeypox virus, which the WHO has designated as a public health emergency. Priority targets for the campaign included laboratory personnel and men who have sex with men with specific risk criteria. Primary immunization involved two doses of the Imvanex/Jynneos vaccine, followed by a single booster dose. We conducted a study in two Italian towns, Bologna and Forlì, in October and November 2022 to investigate adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of the monkeypox vaccine through participant-based active surveillance. Participants who received the vaccine and were aged 18 and over were invited to complete an e-questionnaire by scanning a QR code during their second vaccine appointment or by email one month after the booster dose. A descriptive analysis of AEFI incidences was conducted, with the results stratified by type and severity of symptoms. A total of 135 first-dose, 50 second-dose, and 6 single-dose recipients were included, with a mean age of 36.4 ± 8.7 years. Systemic reactions after the first and second doses were reported by 39.3% and 26.0% of participants, respectively, with asthenia being the most common symptom. Local site reactions were reported by 97.0% and 100.0% of participants, respectively, with redness, swelling, and itching being the most common local AEFIs. Grade 3 or 4 AEFIs were reported for local AEFIs only by 16.8% and 14.0% of participants after the first and second doses, respectively. Our findings suggest that the monkeypox vaccine has a high tolerability profile in terms of short-term common systemic AEFIs. However, the high incidence and severity of local AEFIs highlight the need to monitor their persistence following intradermal administration of the vaccine.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and reduce its complications. The main aim of the study is to assess a possible increase of parents'/caregivers' pediatric flu vaccination adherence due to a nasal administration as an alternative to injection in Bologna. (2) Methods: 169 parents/guardians of children who were joining the COVID-19 pediatric vaccination session in Bologna were interviewed. The results were summarized using descriptive statistics. A multiple logistic regression model was used to assess the determinants of the change in flu vaccine uptake if offered without injection administration. All analyses were conducted using STATA and R-Studio software. (3) Results: Only 29.0% of parents were informed about pediatric flu vaccination by pediatricians, and 32.5% heard about pediatric flu vaccination. Almost 72.2% of parents declared that they would not have their children vaccinated against influenza. Thus, 40.2% of them changed their opinion after being informed about the existence of a non-injective vaccine. Needle fear in children turned out to be a determinant of this opinion change (OR = 3.79; 95% CI = 1.63-9.43; p = 0.003). (4) Conclusions: the study has confirmed that needle fear is a determinant of vaccine hesitancy and that a different method of administration may increase parents'/guardians' adherence.
ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study is to assess whether there is an increased risk of mortality in the days following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in Bologna Health Authority in the first year of COVID-19 vaccination campaign. A secondary objective was to describe causes of deaths occurred in the days after vaccination. We conducted a retrospective observational study on all residents of Bologna Health Authority who received at least one COVID-19 vaccination dose from December 27, 2020 to December 31, 2021 and compared mortality in the 3, 7, 14 30 days after vaccination (risk interval) with the mortality in the period of the same length (3, 7, 14 and 30 days) beyond the 30th day after the last dose of vaccination (control interval). The cohort included 717,538 people. The mortality rate was 2.24 per 100 person-years during the 30 days risk interval vs 2.72 in the control interval with an adjusted incidence rate ratio equal to 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.83, p < 0.001). The risk of mortality is significantly lower (p < 0.001) also in the 3, 7, 14 days risk intervals than in the control intervals. This study shows that there is no increase in mortality in the short-term period after COVID-19 vaccines.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , Humans , Incidence , VaccinationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most people infected with Leishmania remain asymptomatic, which is a common element that may promote the resurgence of clinically evident leishmaniasis in individuals with impaired cell-mediated immune responses. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted assay to identify asymptomatic infection. This cross-sectional study focuses on the employment of three methods targeting different features of the parasitic infection to be used in combination for the screening of latent leishmaniasis in a newly endemic area of northeastern Italy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The selected methods included highly sensitive Real-Time PCR for detection of parasitic kinetoplast (k)DNA in peripheral blood, Western Blot (WB) for detection of specific IgG, and Whole Blood stimulation Assay (WBA) to evaluate the anti-leishmanial T-cell response by quantifying the production of IL-2 after stimulation of patients' blood with Leishmania specific antigens. Among 145 individuals living in a municipality of the Bologna province, northeastern Italy, recruited and screened for Leishmania infection, 23 subjects tested positive (15.9%) to one or more tests. Positive serology was the most common marker of latent leishmaniasis (15/145, 10%), followed by the detection of specific cell-mediated response (12/145, 8%), while only few individuals (6/145, 4%) harbored parasitic DNA in the blood. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Combining different tests substantially increased the yield of positivity in detecting latent Leishmania infection. The test combination that we employed in this study appears to be effective to accurately identify latent leishmaniasis in an endemic area.