Health workers' Perceptions and REsponses in implementing COVID-19 Immunisation StratEgy in South Western Sydney (PRECISE): an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the views and motivations of healthcare workers at a vaccination hub who received a COVID-19 vaccination in March-May 2021. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study via an anonymous electronic survey of seven questions focus on where survey recipients received information about the vaccine roll-out, their motivations for receiving the vaccine and their level of comfort in receiving the vaccine. SETTING: The Liverpool Vaccination Hub is located in South Western Sydney. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were healthcare workers who received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the Australian Government's Phase 1a and 1b priority categories. The majority of survey respondents (70%) were female (median aged between 35 and 44 years). The majority of survey respondents were clinical workers, such as nurse, paramedics and doctors. OUTCOME MEASURES: χ2 analysis was used for analysis of survey responses in univariate analysis. Logistic regression was used to analyse survey responses, adjusting for week, type of health worker and age. RESULTS: 4746 healthcare workers responded to the survey after receiving their first vaccine dose, a response rate of 23%. Over 90% of respondents said that COVID-19 vaccination information from their organisation was easily available. Most of them reported that they were comfortable receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. The majority of respondents were motivated to receive the vaccine due to concern about contracting COVID-19 themselves (75%), or concerns about transmitting it to other people such as patients (52%), family members (65%) or other community members (54%). Younger respondents were more likely to have preferred more information on vaccine safety (p<0.0001) and the effectiveness of the vaccine (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The majority of healthcare workers who received a COVID-19 vaccine reported that it was easy to find useful information about the vaccination roll-out and they had a positive experience being vaccinated.

First among equals? Adaptive preferences and the limits of autonomy in medical ethics.

Respect for patient autonomy is a central principle of medical ethics. However, there are important unresolved questions about the characteristics of an autonomous decision, and whether some autonomous preferences should be subject to more scrutiny than others.In this paper, we consider whether inappropriately adaptive preferences-preferences that are based on and that may perpetuate social injustice-should be categorised as autonomous in a way that gives them normative authority. Some philosophers have argued that inappropriately adaptive preferences do not have normative authority, because they are only a reflection of a person's social context and not of their true self. Under this view, medical professionals who refuse to carry out actions which are based on inappropriately adaptive preferences are not in fact violating their patient's autonomy. However, we argue that it is very difficult to articulate a systematic and principled distinction between normal autonomous preferences and inappropriately adaptive preferences, especially if this distinction needs to be useful for clinicians in real-life situations. This makes it difficult to argue that inappropriately adaptive preferences are straightforwardly non-autonomous.Given this problem, we argue that there are significant theoretical issues with contemporary understandings of autonomy in bioethics. We discuss what this might mean for the practice of medicine and for medical ethics education.

Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination.

Savulescu (forthcoming) argues that it may be ethically acceptable for governments to require citizens be vaccinated against COVID-19. He also recommends that governments consider providing monetary or in-kind incentives to citizens to increase vaccination rates. In this response, we argue against mandatory vaccination and vaccine incentivisation, and instead suggest that targeted public health messaging and a greater responsiveness to the concerns of vaccine-hesitant individuals would be the best strategy to address low vaccination rates.