Special Issue "Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research"

A special issue of Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X). This special issue belongs to the section "Vaccines and Society".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 December 2023 | Viewed by 9538

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Christian Napoli
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Medical Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
Interests: COVID-19 vaccination acceptance; COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy; lockdown; knowledges, behaviours, COVID-19, Legionella, legionellosis; migrants; migrant's health; Legionnaires' disease; chikungunya; dengue
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Prof. Dr. Francesca Gallè
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Vaccines are one of the most effective measures we can take for the prevention of infectious diseases. This is demonstrated by the important successes in the eradication, elimination and control of several infectious diseases. The events experienced in the current COVID-19 pandemic have shown that scientific research has the ability to find safe and effective alternatives to traditional vaccines in a short period of time. Consequently, at present, the vaccination campaign is the first method to have been used counteract the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, Italy is one of the most organized countries with regard to their method of fighting this epidemic through a structured national vaccination strategy. The speed at which Italy is vaccinating its citizens has outpaced several other European Union countries, demonstrating its skill in using vaccinations in a strategic and efficient way.

At the same time, the contribution of Italian institutions to the research in the field of vaccines and vaccinations is known worldwide.

However, the efficacy of a vaccination campaign may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy in individuals. The healthcare systems of many countries have to counteract the spread of misinformation by unauthorized sources which threaten the immunization effort.

In this context, we are pleased to announce the Special Issue "Vaccine and Vaccination: on field research in Italy". The Issue covers recent advancements in the preparation and use of vaccines in Italy.

We welcome the submission of original manuscripts from outstanding researchers in this field. Research articles, brief communications, reviews and meta-analyses will be considered. Short proposals for submissions of papers can be sent to the Editorial Office ([email protected], [email protected]) for a preliminary evaluation.

Prof. Dr. Francesca Gallè
Prof. Dr. Christian Napoli
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Vaccines is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • vaccination strategies
  • vaccine epidemiology
  • COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy
  • new public health approach in vaccine use
  • communication campaigns

Published Papers (9 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research, Review

Editorial
Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research
Vaccines 2022, 10(7), 1027; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10071027 - 27 Jun 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 857
Abstract
Historically, vaccinations have enabled the eradication, elimination, and control of many debilitating diseases [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Review

Communication
Hesitancy toward the Full COVID-19 Vaccination among Kidney, Liver and Lung Transplant Recipients in Italy
Vaccines 2022, 10(11), 1899; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111899 - 10 Nov 2022
Viewed by 677
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination hesitancy is a threat as COVID-19 vaccines have reduced both viral transmission and virus-associated mortality rates, particularly in high-risk subgroups. Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are particularly vulnerable, as the underlying causes of their organ failure and [...] Read more.
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination hesitancy is a threat as COVID-19 vaccines have reduced both viral transmission and virus-associated mortality rates, particularly in high-risk subgroups. Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are particularly vulnerable, as the underlying causes of their organ failure and the chronic immunosuppression are associated with a lower immune response to COVID-19 vaccines, and with an excessive risk of death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and its reasons in a population of SOTRs. Methods: All the SOTRs attending our post-transplant clinics were asked to fill in a vaccination status form with specific validated questions related to their willingness to receive a third vaccine dose. In the case of negative answers, the patients were encouraged to explain the reasons for their refusal. Among the SOTRs (1899), 1019 were investigated (53.7%). Results: Overall, 5.01% (51/1019) of the SOTRs raised concerns regarding the future third dose vaccination. In more detail, hesitancy rates were 3.3% (15/453), 4.2% (7/166), and 7.3% (29/400) among the investigated liver, lung, and kidney transplant recipients, respectively (p = 0.0018). The main reasons for hesitancy were fear of adverse events (30/51, 58.8%) and perceived lack of efficacy (21/51, 41.2%). Conclusions: Full adherence to ongoing or future vaccination campaigns is crucial to prevent, or at least reduce, COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in fragile patients. The identification of the reasons influencing COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in these patients is very important to establish appropriate and targeted patient–doctor communication strategies, and to further implement specific vaccination campaigns. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Article
Preventive Measures for SARS-CoV-2 in the Workplace and Vaccine Acceptance: Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors of Workers in Southern Italy
Vaccines 2022, 10(11), 1872; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111872 - 05 Nov 2022
Viewed by 447
Abstract
(1) Background: this study investigated the preventive measures implemented in the workplace and evaluated knowledge, attitudes and adherence behaviors regarding SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission and preventive measures in a group of workers. (2) Methods: this cross-sectional study was conducted from May to July [...] Read more.
(1) Background: this study investigated the preventive measures implemented in the workplace and evaluated knowledge, attitudes and adherence behaviors regarding SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission and preventive measures in a group of workers. (2) Methods: this cross-sectional study was conducted from May to July 2021 among 501 workers in the Campania region, in Southern Italy. (3) Results: 80.5% of respondents declared that their company had implemented the main COVID-19 preventive measures, and 54.7% of respondents knew SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission along with the main preventive measures. Moreover, 34.2% were highly concerned about contracting SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace and transmitting it to family. Adherence to all preventive measures in the workplace involved 42.5% of respondents. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model revealed that significant determinants of adherence to all preventive measures in the workplace were being female, working not as a manager or office employee, cohabiting with someone that received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, knowing SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission and the related main preventive measures, being highly concerned of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace and transmitting it to family and believing that COVID-19 vaccine offers high protection against disease. At the time of the survey, 47.5% of respondents had already received COVID-19 vaccine. Among unvaccinated respondents, 11.8% expressed unwillingness to get vaccinated for COVID-19. (4) Conclusions: These findings highlighted a good awareness about COVID-19 prevention and underlined a good propensity to get vaccinated among workers. Therefore, there is the need that preventive measures should be prioritized in the working context. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Article
Rural-Urban Disparities in Vaccine Hesitancy among Adults in South Tyrol, Italy
Vaccines 2022, 10(11), 1870; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111870 - 05 Nov 2022
Viewed by 670
Abstract
Background: The demographic determinants of hesitancy in Coronavirus Disease—2019 (COVID-19) vaccination include rurality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In the second year of the pandemic, in South Tyrol, Italy, 15.6 percent of a representative adult sample reported hesitancy. Individual factors responsible for [...] Read more.
Background: The demographic determinants of hesitancy in Coronavirus Disease—2019 (COVID-19) vaccination include rurality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In the second year of the pandemic, in South Tyrol, Italy, 15.6 percent of a representative adult sample reported hesitancy. Individual factors responsible for greater vaccination hesitancy in rural areas of central Europe are poorly understood. Methods: A cross-sectional survey on a probability-based sample of South Tyrol residents in March 2021 was analyzed. The questionnaire collected information on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, COVID-19-related experiences, conspiracy thinking, and the likelihood of accepting the national vaccination plan. A logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: Among 1426 survey participants, 17.6% of the rural sample (n = 145/824) reported hesitancy with COVID-19 vaccination versus 12.8% (n = 77/602) in urban residents (p = 0.013). Rural residents were less likely to have post-secondary education, lived more frequently in households with children under six years of age, and their economic situation was worse than before the pandemic. Chronic diseases and deaths due to COVID-19 among close relatives were less frequently reported, and trust in pandemic management by national public health institutions was lower, as was trust in local authorities, civil protection, and local health services. Logistic regression models confirmed the most well-known predictors of hesitancy in both urban and rural populations; overall, residency was not an independent predictor. Conclusion: Several predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas, which may explain the lower vaccine uptake in rural areas. Rurality is not a determinant of vaccine hesitancy in the economically well-developed North of Italy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Communication
Short-Term Adverse Effects Following Booster Dose of Inactivated-Virus vs. Adenoviral-Vector COVID-19 Vaccines in Algeria: A Cross-Sectional Study of the General Population
Vaccines 2022, 10(11), 1781; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111781 - 22 Oct 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1316
Abstract
COVID-19 booster vaccines have been adopted in almost all countries to enhance the immune response and combat the emergence of new variants. Algeria adopted this strategy in November 2021. This study was conducted to consider the self-reported side effects of COVID-19 booster vaccines [...] Read more.
COVID-19 booster vaccines have been adopted in almost all countries to enhance the immune response and combat the emergence of new variants. Algeria adopted this strategy in November 2021. This study was conducted to consider the self-reported side effects of COVID-19 booster vaccines by Algerians who were vaccinated with a booster dose of one of the approved inactivated-virus vaccines, such as BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac, or one of the adenoviral-vector-based vaccines, such as Gam-COVID-Vac, AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S, and to determine the eventual risk factors. A cross-sectional study using an online self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) was conducted in Algeria between 28 April 2022, and 20 July 2022. A descriptive analysis of the 196 individuals who were included showed a nearly equal distribution of adenoviral- (52%) and inactivated-virus vaccines (48%) and of males (49.5%) and females (50.5%). The results showed that 74.7% of the studied population reported at least one local or systemic side effect. These side effects were more frequent among adenoviral-vector vaccinees (87.3%) than inactivated-virus vaccinees (60.6%) (sig. < 0.001). Injection site pain (40.3%), heat at the injection site (21.4%), and arm pain (16.3%) were the most common local side effects. These signs generally appeared in the first 12 h (73.3%) and generally lasted less than 24 h (32.8%). More interestingly, these signs differed from those that followed the administration of primer doses (48.5%) and were generally more severe (37%). The same observation was reported for systemic side effects, where the signs were especially most severe in the adenoviral-vaccinated group (49.4% vs. 20.8%; sig. = 0.001). These signs generally appeared within the first day (63.6%) and mostly disappeared before two days (50.8%), with fatigue (41.8%), fever (41.3%), and headache (30.1%) being the most common. Adenoviral-vector vaccinees (62.7%) were more likely to use medications to manage these side effects than were inactivated-virus vaccinees (45.7%) (sig. = 0.035) and paracetamol (48.5%) was the most used medication. Adenoviral-based vaccines were the types of vaccines that were most likely to cause side effects. In addition, being female increased the risk of developing side effects; regular medication was associated with local side effects among inactivated-virus vaccinees; and previous infection with COVID-19 was associated with systemic and local side effects among adenovirus-based vaccinees. These results support the short-term safety of booster vaccines, as has been reported for primer doses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Vaccine Hesitancy during the Coronavirus Pandemic in South Tyrol, Italy: Linguistic Correlates in a Representative Cross-Sectional Survey
Vaccines 2022, 10(10), 1584; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101584 - 21 Sep 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 737
Abstract
Background: German is a minority language in Italy and is spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, South Tyrol. Linguistic group membership in South Tyrol is an established determinant of health information-seeking behavior. Because the COVID-19 incidence [...] Read more.
Background: German is a minority language in Italy and is spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, South Tyrol. Linguistic group membership in South Tyrol is an established determinant of health information-seeking behavior. Because the COVID-19 incidence and vaccination coverage in the second year of the pandemic in Italy was the worst in South Tyrol, we investigated whether linguistic group membership is related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on a probability-based sample of 1425 citizens from South Tyrol in March 2021. The questionnaire collected information on socio-demographics, including linguistic group membership, comorbidities, COVID-19-related experiences, conspiracy thinking, well-being, altruism, and likelihood of accepting the national vaccination plan. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Results: Overall, 15.6 percent of the sample reported vaccine hesitancy, which was significantly higher among German speakers than among other linguistic groups. Increased hesitancy was mostly observed in young age, the absence of chronic disease, rural residence, a worsened economic situation, mistrust in institutions, and conspiracy thinking. In the multiple logistic regression analyses, linguistic group membership was not an independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion: Although German is a minority language in Italy and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was higher in the German native language group than in the Italian, linguistic group membership was not an independent predictor of hesitancy in the autonomous province. Known predictors of vaccine hesitancy are distributed unevenly across language groups. Whether language group-specific intervention strategies to promote vaccine hesitancy are useful requires further study. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Citizen Stance towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccine Booster Doses: A Study in Colombia, El Salvador and Spain
Vaccines 2022, 10(5), 781; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050781 - 15 May 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1246
Abstract
The infections and deaths resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered the need for some governments to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. The present study aims to analyze the position of 3026 adults in Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain regarding the possibility of making [...] Read more.
The infections and deaths resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered the need for some governments to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. The present study aims to analyze the position of 3026 adults in Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain regarding the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine mandatory and the intention to be vaccinated with the booster or possible successive doses. Data from an online survey conducted from August to December 2021 among a non-representative sample of Spanish-speaking countries were collected. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models were used. A total of 77.4% of Colombians were in favor of mandatory vaccination compared to 71.5% of Salvadorians and 65.4% of Spaniards (p < 0.000). Women and people over 65 years of age were the groups most in favor of making the vaccine mandatory (p < 0.000). A total of 79.4% said they had received a third dose or would intend to receive the third dose or future doses, if necessary, compared with 9.4% who expressed doubts and 9.9% who refused to be vaccinated or did not intend to be vaccinated. Among the measures that could be taken to motivate vaccination, 63.0% and 60.6% were in favor of requiring a negative test to enter any place of leisure or work, respectively, compared to 16.2% in favor of suspension from work without pay. The acceptance of mandatory vaccination and of third or future doses varies greatly according to sociodemographic characteristics and work environment. As such, it is recommended that policy makers adapt public health strategies accordingly. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Article
How do Vaccinators Experience the Pandemic? Lifestyle Behaviors in a Sample of Italian Public Health Workers during the COVID-19 Era
Vaccines 2022, 10(2), 247; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10020247 - 06 Feb 2022
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 1111
Abstract
Public health workers (PHWs) have experienced substantial workload changes because of their role in managing measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. The study’s aim was to assess lifestyle changes in Italian PHWs during the pandemic. PHWs attending an annual meeting completed an [...] Read more.
Public health workers (PHWs) have experienced substantial workload changes because of their role in managing measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. The study’s aim was to assess lifestyle changes in Italian PHWs during the pandemic. PHWs attending an annual meeting completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing their sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics and lifestyle changes during the pandemic. A total of 1000 questionnaires were completed. Most participants (63.5% women, mean age 40 ± 13.1 years) were of normal weight (61.5%), non-smokers (81.9%), had a total screen time of ≥5 h/day (83.1%), and slept at least 6 h/night (88.7%). Approximately one-third consumed sweet foods every day (30%) and did not engage in physical activity (34.6%). Current sweet food consumption, physical activity, and sleep were associated with changes in these behaviors in the last 2 years (Tau-b = 0.155; Tau-b = −0.175; Tau-b = −0.276, respectively, p < 0.001). An increase in remote working was associated with worse sleep (odds ratio (OR) 2.065, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.482–2.877) and diet (OR 1.982, 95% CI 1.385–2.838), and increased tablet/PC use (OR 3.314, 95% CI 2.358–4.656). Health promotion measures are needed to support the adoption of healthy lifestyles in this population during the current pandemic. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)

Review

Jump to: Editorial, Research

Review
COVID-19 Vaccination and Ukrainian Refugees in Poland during Russian–Ukrainian War—Narrative Review
Vaccines 2022, 10(6), 955; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10060955 - 16 Jun 2022
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2017
Abstract
The outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war contributed to the largest migration movement in the 21st century. As a result, over 3 million refugees, mainly women, children and the elderly, arrived in Poland in a short space of time. Despite the ongoing war, it [...] Read more.
The outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war contributed to the largest migration movement in the 21st century. As a result, over 3 million refugees, mainly women, children and the elderly, arrived in Poland in a short space of time. Despite the ongoing war, it is important to remember that the COVID-19 pandemic is still present in the world, and before the outbreak of the war, Ukraine was struggling with its fifth wave. Furthermore, Ukraine has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Europe, not exceeding 40%. It is, therefore, reasonable to suspect that the vast majority of migrants have not been vaccinated. This situation may pose a significant epidemiological risk. Therefore, it is necessary to implement appropriate steps to determine the vaccination status of refugees and to supplement the vaccination with both the core and booster doses. In response to these needs, the government of Poland, like many other countries, has made it possible to provide free COVID-19 vaccination to persons fleeing war. In the face of massive migration, the overriding priority should be to ensure adequate medical care for refugees, including free COVID-19 vaccinations. However, it seems that the lack of willingness to vaccinate among Ukrainians is also replicated on migration. It seems reasonable that appropriate steps should be taken to increase awareness and confidence in vaccination, which may ultimately translate into increased vaccination uptake. Analyzing previous experiences, it is advisable to consider that the first step should be to promote vaccination and remind refugees of the possibility of free COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, refugees should be encouraged to be vaccinated during every contact with health care workers. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine and Vaccination: On Field Research)
Back to TopTop