Factors Underlying Vaccine Hesitancy and Their Mitigations in Saudi Arabia: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern in Saudi Arabia, impacting even well-educated parents. The decision-making process involves various factors such as accessibility, trustworthy information, and the influence of social networks, reflecting a complex interplay of emotional, cultural, social, spiritual, and political dimensions. OBJECTIVE: This review seeks to evaluate the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy, identify contributing factors, and explore potential solutions to enhance immunization rates. This review aligns with global concerns, as the World Health Organization has identified vaccine hesitancy as a top global health threat. METHODS: Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) criteria for comprehensive assessment. We will conduct a thorough search across various databases, encompassing a wide range of vaccines, and pay special attention to vaccination campaigns and refusals. Inclusion criteria involve descriptive, observational, and analytical studies focusing on factors influencing vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. The study will use the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool for quality assessment and perform a narrative synthesis to summarize findings thematically. RESULTS: This systematic review is expected to unveil the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy in diverse populations in Saudi Arabia, shedding light on cultural, religious, and social factors contributing to hesitancy. It aims to assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies, enable regional and global comparisons, and provide implications for tailored vaccination policies. Additionally, the review may pinpoint research gaps, guiding future investigations to address and mitigate vaccine hesitancy effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are expected to have direct policy implications and guide interventions to strengthen vaccination programs and improve public health outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54680.

Differentiating suicide from homicide in sharp-force fatalities with stab and/or incised wounds: A scoping review.

The majority of sharp-force fatalities with stab and/or incised wounds are homicides. However, suicidal sharp-force fatalities with stab and/or incised wounds are also reported. Thus, distinguishing suicidal stab and/or incised wounds from homicidal stab and/or incised wounds is significant from the forensic perspective. This scoping review primarily summarizes the existing research findings on the differentiation of suicide from homicide in sharp-force fatalities with stab and/or incised wounds. The literature was systematically searched on February 28, 2023, using the PubMed database. A search string formed by a combination of keywords related to suicide, homicide, and stab and incised wounds yielded 23 records. After applying the eligibility criteria, six records/studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present scoping review. Results showed that the predictive strength of various parameters, either individually or collectively, in diagnosing the manner of sharp-force fatality as suicide or homicide is not always hundred percent accurate. Some of the important predictors of the homicidal manner of death in sharp-force fatalities include clothing damage, presence of defense injuries, presence of injuries caused by another type of violence other than sharp-force, vertically oriented chest stabs, and sharp-force injuries in the head and back anatomical sites. Some of the important predictors of the suicidal manner of death in sharp-force fatalities include the presence of tentative injuries, sharp-force injuries to the wrist, and the presence of a suicide note.

Artificial Intelligence and Patient Autonomy in Obesity Treatment Decisions: An Empirical Study of the Challenges.

Background This study aims to explore the factors associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and patient autonomy in obesity treatment decision-making. Methodology A cross-sectional, online, descriptive survey design was adopted in this study. The survey instrument incorporated the Ideal Patient Autonomy Scale (IPAS) and other factors affecting patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship. The study participants included 74 physicians, 55 dieticians, and 273 obese patients. Results Different views were expressed in the scales AI knows the best (µ = 2.95-3.15) and the patient should decide (µ = 2.95-3.16). Ethical concerns (µ = 3.24) and perceived privacy risks (µ = 3.58) were identified as having a more negative influence on patient autonomy compared to personal innovativeness (µ = 2.41) and trust (µ = 2.85). Physicians and dieticians expressed significantly higher trust in AI compared to patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions Patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship is significantly affected by privacy, trust, and ethical issues. As trust is a multifaceted factor and AI is a novel technology in healthcare, it is essential to fully explore the various factors influencing trust and patient autonomy.