Search Results (422)

This study provides a detailed analysis of COVID-19-related social media discourse in Italy, using 535,886 tweets from 10 major cities between 30 August 2020 and 8 June 2021. The tweets were translated from Italian to English for analysis. A multifaceted methodology was employed: Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) identified 20 key themes; sentiment analysis, using TextBlob, Flair, and TweetNLP, and emotion recognition using TweetNLP, revealed the emotional tone of the discourse, with 453 tweets unanimously positive across all algorithms. TextBlob was used for lexical analysis to rank the most salient positive and negative terms. The results indicated that positive sentiments centered on hope, safety measures, and vaccination progress, while negative sentiments focused on fear, death, and quarantine frustrations. This research offers valuable insights for public health officials, enabling tailored messaging, real-time strategy monitoring, and agile policymaking during the pandemic, with implications for future health crises. Full article

Introduction: COVID-19 and influenza are viruses that have been major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While a combination vaccine for these two viruses is currently in development, little is known about public perceptions and attitudes towards such a vaccine. Therefore, we have aimed to conduct a scoping review to evaluate the attitudes and reasons for the acceptance/rejection of a combination COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Material and Methods: Our review has followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Search terms included those on COVID-19, influenza, and combination vaccines. Searches were conducted in a total of 10 different databases, as follows: Embase, Global Health, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Results: Searches across all databases produced a total of 1763 results, of which five studies were deemed to be eligible for this review. Data from included studies encompassed a total of 20,581 participants across 14 countries. Generally, participants had favorable views towards a combination vaccine. However, attitudes varied by region, demographics, and prior vaccine exposure. Reasons provided for accepting a combination vaccine include low cost, reasonable effectiveness, fewer injections, and higher safety. However, reasons for rejection of a potential combination vaccine include a potential lack of evidence and studies regarding its effectiveness and a fear of possible side effects. Conclusions: There are generally positive attitudes and perceptions towards a combination vaccination for COVID-19 and influenza, and there are also specific segments of populations that may show hesitancy towards such a vaccine. Vaccination delivery programs should clearly demonstrate that these vaccines are safe and must concurrently address false rumors and misinformation. Ensuring that as many people as possible can receive the vaccination without barriers via equity in access should be a public health priority. It is also important to recognize the limitations of this work, especially that the review was limited to five studies, the majority of which were cross-sectional and relied on self-reporting. Full article

Introduction: In the United States, vaccine hesitancy is higher among rural and racially and ethnically diverse communities, and messaging from trusted individuals may increase vaccine acceptance. The purpose of this study is to understand vaccine hesitancy, messaging from trusted individuals, and vaccine acceptance strategies among racially and ethnically diverse, medically underserved rural populations. Methods: The researchers conducted 12 in-person focus groups, each consisting of 5 to 12 participants, with community members and trusted leaders from three rural counties in Eastern North Carolina (n = 119). Thematic analysis was used to synthesize insights from the discussions, allowing for the identification of recurring patterns and community-specific considerations regarding vaccine perceptions and messaging. Results: The researchers identified seven key themes within the primary focus areas of the study: factors influencing vaccine hesitancy, messaging from trusted individuals, and strategies to improve vaccine acceptance. Participants reported differences in trust based on how long a vaccine has been available, concerns about becoming sick after a vaccine, seeing the symptoms of vaccine-preventable diseases, and misinformation on social media. Overall, participants reported trust in messages from medical providers. Trusted leaders advised people to conduct their own research on vaccines when determining whether to receive vaccinations. Lastly, social determinants such as cost, education, and transportation were identified as key barriers to vaccination. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that medical providers are trusted messengers for vaccine information and the promotion of vaccine uptake. However, distrust linked to fear, misinformation, and structural barriers persist. Public health efforts to increase vaccination confidence among rural, racially and ethnically diverse populations in the United States Southeast should address these factors in future vaccine interventions and educational efforts. Full article

The increased menstrual disturbances post-vaccination remain unclear. We examined factors, types, frequencies, and emotional challenges. We used a self-administered online questionnaire with the IBM-based SPSSv-24-Windows software for analysis. Of 1372 females, 61.1% (n = 838) were aged 19–29 years, 94.2% (n = 1292) were Saudis, 66.4% (n = 911) were graduates, 70% (n = 965) were single, and 15% (n = 205) had chronic diseases. Moreover, 96.5% (n = 1285/1332) had two vaccine doses, mostly Pfizer’s first- and second doses (82% and 78, respectively), while 3.5% (n = 47) only had one. Vaccine groups significantly differed (Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford, and do not know) after the first (0.047) and second (0.049) doses, while Pfizer vaccines were predictive [OR = 2.09 (0.96–4.10), p = 0.029] at two-doses [OR = 3.21 (1.23–5.21), p = 0.030]. No acute COVID appeared. The majority (77%; n = 1057) had no issues, except, in a subgroup of 23% (n = 315) of participants, 43% (n = 135) experienced worsening issues. However, 47.2% (n = 629) complained only post vaccination. Most issues were (75%; n = 471) cycle-timing disruptions; the rest were minor (decreased blood or bleeding, missed-periods, or pain). Other potential reasons were fear, stress, and mental health problems, which occurred in 51% (n = 674) of the group, while 53% (n = 701) were worried. Intriguingly, the menstrual issues in the remaining 47% (n=631) who were not worried could be due to a direct molecular vaccine interaction, irrespective of any mental issue ([OR = 1.78 (0.76–3.21), p = 0.033]. Age proportionalities were significant (p = 0.05) in the 30–39 year-old group (51%). Postgraduate education [OR = 2.11 (0.98–4.72), p = 0.015) and employment [OR = 2.18 (0.95–4.86), p = 0.049] were also predictors. These findings have significant implications in women’s health and vaccine improvement. Future studies on diverse factors are warranted. Full article

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in significant morbidity and mortality globally. Despite the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing morbidity and mortality, uptake in South Africa was sub-optimal due to a number of factors which remain not fully understood, particularly in mandatory vaccination workplace settings. This quantitative, cross-sectional study aimed to understand determinants of COVID-19 vaccination uptake among clinical and non-clinical workers, aged 18 years and older, employed at a large organisation with a mandatory workplace COVID-19 vaccination policy in South Africa. Workers completed a one-off, self-administered, online questionnaire that explored determinants of COVID-19 vaccination, barriers and enablers to accessing vaccines, and perspectives regarding the mandatory workplace vaccine policy. Among the 88 workers enrolled in the study, the frequent reasons for COVID-19 vaccination included preventing the spread of COVID-19 (71%, n = 62), fear of contracting COVID-19 (64%, n = 56), protecting colleagues and patients (63%, n = 55), and the mandatory workplace policy (65%, n = 57). Just under two-thirds of workers (63%, n = 55) were supportive/very supportive of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Reasons for support included the fact that vaccination would create a safer work environment, protecting oneself/others from acquiring COVID-19, and receiving support from their employer. Only 15% (n = 13) of workers were not supportive/against the policy. The findings of this study could inform occupational health policy and counselling and support in workplaces in future pandemics. Full article

Awareness about the attitudes towards the vaccination of persons with schizophrenia is essential, as this group has a greater likelihood of experiencing serious consequences if infected with COVID-19 or other infectious processes. For this reason, 141 persons with schizophrenia completed a survey addressing different aspects of receiving the vaccine for COVID-19. In general, the results are similar to those of people without a severe mental disorder. Persons with schizophrenia were willing to get vaccinated, perceived vaccination as being as safe and effective as the general population did, and reported that they usually followed preventive measures to avoid the spread of the virus. However, their concerns were frequently related to possible health problems or fears about the vaccination. There is no influence from sociodemographic variables, though limited social life, perceived risk in people in their immediate environment, and a negative self-assessment of their own health were associated with increased acceptance of vaccination. Thus, the present study provides useful information on this topic and encourages the development of programs and interventions that promote preventive actions for this group of people. Full article

Background: Influenza is an acute viral disease that primarily affects the airways. It is caused by influenza A and B—RNA viruses. The disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The prevention of influenza includes chemoprophylaxis and vaccination, which are the primary preventive measures against influenza infection and should be highly considered by everyone during influenza season. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase until September 2024. The review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Eventually, a total of 20 publications were included in the final analysis of this systematic review. While general awareness of influenza was moderate, detailed understanding of complications and vaccine safety was frequently lacking. Misconceptions—such as fears of fetal harm and confusion between antiviral and antibiotic treatments—were widespread. Vaccine uptake was generally low but strongly correlated with receiving a healthcare provider recommendation. Willingness to vaccinate was higher in settings where participants were educated during the study process, indicating a crucial role of health communication. Discussion: According to the reviewed literature, the reluctance to receive maternal vaccination often stems primarily from fears or concerns about adverse reactions or misconceptions about the vaccine’s effectiveness, as well as the absence of a physician’s recommendation. Misconceptions regarding vaccine safety, limited understanding of influenza severity, and a lack of clear communication from healthcare professionals are key contributors to low vaccination uptake. Importantly, multiple studies confirmed that recommendation by a trusted healthcare provider significantly increases vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted educational strategies, improved antenatal counseling, and systems-level support to ensure that maternal influenza vaccination becomes a standard and trusted component of prenatal care worldwide. Full article

Background/Objectives: Seasonal influenza vaccination is crucial for reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burdens. The 2023/2024 Ligurian vaccination campaign (Italy) utilized an inclusive model involving local health authorities, general practitioners, pediatricians, and pharmacies to enhance accessibility. Our study aimed at focusing on factors influencing vaccine uptake, public attitudes and access to preventive healthcare services. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults (≥18 years) in Ligurian pharmacies visitors during the vaccination campaign. A self-administered structured questionnaire gathered data on demographics, vaccination history, healthcare access, and awareness. Results: The study included 30,499 participants, and the median age with P25–P75 (years) was 62.0 [47.0–74.0]; 54.6% were female. Considering determinants of accepting influenza vaccination, age was identified as a strong independent predictor. Each one-year increase in age was associated with a 3.8% increase in the odds of influenza vaccination (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.03–1.04, p < 0.001). Compared to individuals who never visited their general practitioners, those who visited “sometimes”, “often”, or “very often” had significantly higher odds of influenza vaccination (OR 1.54, 1.97, and 1.98, respectively; p < 0.001 for all categories). The strongest predictor of influenza vaccination in the 2023/2024 season was having received the influenza vaccine in the previous season (2022/2023) (OR 71.73, 95% CI 65.38–78.78, p < 0.001). Consistent with increasing age predicting higher influenza vaccination uptake, older age was associated with lower odds of refusing the vaccine due to the belief that “getting or transmitting influenza does not matter” or due to “other or unspecified reasons”. In contrast, receipt of the COVID-19 vaccination significantly increased the odds of holding these opinions. Among individuals who cited reasons such as fear of side effects, concerns about vaccine safety, fear of injections, general opposition to vaccines, or doubts about vaccine effectiveness, having received the COVID-19 vaccine was associated with lower odds of citing these as barriers to influenza vaccination. Conclusions: Fear of side effects and perceived unnecessary vaccination are key barriers. Targeted education and the involvement of general practitioners could enhance vaccine acceptance, particularly among hesitant groups. Full article

Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a significant public health challenge, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite extensive research on the psychological and socio-political determinants of VH, its psychophysiological mechanisms remain unexplored. Grounded in the Somatic Marker Hypothesis, this study aims to investigate the neurophysiological and affective processes underlying VH. Methods: Two experiments will assess sensorimotor resonance and affective processes in VH. In the first experiment, motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) will be recorded from the deltoid and extensor carpi radialis muscles while participants view images of people receiving COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, as well as blood injections (Block 1), and images of vial containing the same substances (Block 2). Facial electromyographic (EMG) activity will measure disgust and fear responses. In the second experiment, skin conductance response (SCR) will be recorded during a virtual reality-based fear conditioning and extinction paradigm. Expected Outcomes: We hypothesize that vaccine-hesitant individuals will exhibit altered sensorimotor resonance, higher affective responses to vaccination stimuli, and impaired fear extinction learning. Psychological traits such as disgust sensitivity, paranoia, anxiety, and dogmatism are expected to be associated with VH. Conclusions: By identifying the psychophysiological mechanisms of VH, this study will contribute to developing effective vaccine promotion strategies to address future public health emergencies. Full article

Currently, young populations (individuals under 26 years old) face unprecedented challenges, including climate change, environmental degradation, and the management of public health crises such as vaccine hesitancy. In this complex environment, social media plays a crucial role in shaping youth attitudes and behaviors, presenting both significant opportunities and risks. Social media platforms have become essential in shaping public opinion on general topics and health-related issues, particularly vaccination. Understanding how digital platforms influence youth behavior regarding vaccination can offer valuable insights into psychosocial mechanisms capable of stimulating sustainable behaviors among the same demographic. This study explores a novel intersection between public health and environmental communication, proposing that the same psychosocial and communicative mechanisms influencing pro-vaccination behaviors—such as trust, social influence, and emotional resonance—also underpin pro-environmental engagement among youth. Understanding this overlap allows for cross-domain strategies in digital communication campaigns. This paper examines how digital communication strategies effective in promoting vaccination can be adapted to foster pro-environmental behavior among youth. By identifying shared psychosocial mechanisms—such as fear, trust, and social influence—the study proposes a conceptual framework for leveraging social media to support sustainable behaviors. This study explores how social media influences youth attitudes towards vaccination and pro-environmental behavior. Using a structured questionnaire distributed among 450 young participants (aged 18–26) and analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) via WarpPLS, the research identifies key psychosocial mechanisms such as fear, trust, and social influence. Results show that social media exposure and peer environment are strong predictors of both vaccination and environmental behaviors (R² = 0.70 for vaccination attitude; R² = 0.50 for environmental attitude). The proposed conceptual model highlights the importance of emotionally resonant, science-based communication strategies in promoting sustainable behaviors among youth. Practical implications for strategic digital campaigns are discussed. Full article

This study proposes and examines the dynamics of a susceptible–exposed–infectious–recovered (SEIR) model for the spread of seasonal influenza. The population is categorized into four distinct groups: susceptible (S), exposed (E), infectious (I), and recovered (R) individuals. The symmetric model integrates a bilinear incidence rate alongside a nonlinear recovery rate that depends on the quality of healthcare services. Additionally, it accounts for the impact of fear related to the disease and includes a constant vaccination rate as well as a nonlinear treatment function. The model advances current epidemiological frameworks by simultaneously accounting for these interrelated mechanisms, which are typically studied in isolation. We derive the expression for the basic reproduction number and analyze the essential stability properties of the model. Key analytical results demonstrate that the system exhibits rich dynamic behavior, including backward bifurcation (where stable endemic equilibria persist even when the basic reproduction number is less than one) and Hopf bifurcation. These phenomena emerge from the interplay between fear-induced suppression of transmission, treatment saturation, and healthcare quality. Numerical simulations using Saudi Arabian demographic and epidemiological data quantify how increased fear perception shrinks the bistability region, facilitating eradication. Healthcare capacity improvements, on the other hand, reduce the critical reproduction number threshold while treatment accessibility suppresses infection loads. The model’s practical significance lies in its ability to identify intervention points where small parameter changes yield disproportionate control benefits and evaluate trade-offs between pharmaceutical (vaccination/treatment) and non-pharmaceutical (fear-driven distancing) strategies. This work establishes a versatile framework for public health decision making and the integrated approach offers policymakers a tool to simulate combined intervention scenarios and anticipate nonlinear system responses that simpler models cannot capture. Full article

Background/Objectives: Vaccine hesitancy has increased during the coronavirus pandemic, a period marked by the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines. This qualitative study aimed to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Spaniards towards COVID-19 vaccines and analyze the role of information sources in this process. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 residents of Spain who exhibited varying levels of vaccine hesitancy. Through thematic content analysis, the narratives supporting vaccination-related decisions, as well as the influence and trust in information sources, were examined. Results: Reasons for getting vaccinated included perceptions of it being “almost an obligation” and “fear of illness and death”. Conversely, reasons for not getting vaccinated included “uncertainty about vaccines”, the belief that “the risk is not real”, and the perception that “vaccination is a personal decision”. Regarding vaccine-related information sources, interviewees expressed distrust of the media, particularly television, as they considered news about vaccine effectiveness and characteristics to be contradictory and constantly changing, which created uncertainty about its reliability. Most interviewees were unsure if social media influenced their decision not to get vaccinated. However, those who acknowledged its impact mentioned trusting sources such as people with a university education. Additionally, close contacts—particularly healthcare professionals—had a significant influence on the decision not to get vaccinated. Conclusions: This study shows that the decision not to vaccinate is shaped by personal beliefs and sources of information—particularly social media and close acquaintances, including healthcare professionals. Full article

Background/Objectives: In recent years, Brazil has experienced declining vaccination coverage, raising concerns about vaccine hesitancy and barriers to access. This research analyzes the reasons for non-vaccination among children born in 2017 and 2018 in a metropolitan area of the state of São Paulo in 2020 and 2021. Methods: Data were obtained from a retrospective cohort of children born in 2017 and 2018, living in Campinas, monitored during the first 24 months by vaccination records. A stratified and clustered sample by census sector was performed according to socioeconomic conditions. The reasons for non-vaccination were obtained from interviews with the children’s guardians. Results: A total of 1775 caregivers were interviewed, and 63.1% of children had complete vaccination coverage, with lower socioeconomic groups presenting the highest rates for non-vaccination. The study identified three main groups for non-vaccination: vaccine hesitancy (e.g., fear of side effects, misinformation) in 1.7% of respondents, access difficulties (e.g., service location, financial constraints) in 7.9%, and missed opportunities (e.g., lack of vaccines, administrative barriers) in 16.4%. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the main reported barriers to childhood vaccination are missed opportunities in healthcare services, often due to vaccine shortages or administrative issues, along with social vulnerabilities. Vaccine hesitancy stems from misinformation and fear of side effects. Despite these challenges, families persist in seeking vaccination. However, coverage remains below the national targets, particularly in the second year of life. Targeted public health interventions are urgently needed to improve vaccine confidence, accessibility, and healthcare system efficiency. Full article

Background/Objectives: Vaccination hesitancy remains a global challenge, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the prevalence of hesitancy towards regular COVID-19 vaccinations, including booster doses (additional doses beyond the primary to sustain or improve immunity), among university students and its associated factors. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 190 university students from Hellenic Mediterranean University in Crete, Greece. Data were collected through an electronic survey distributed from July to October 2024. The survey included socio-demographic characteristics, health status factors, prior COVID-19 infection and vaccination history (general and for COVID-19), attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination, and the Attitude Towards Adult Vaccination (ATAVAC) scale. Qualitative data were also collected by addressing themes regarding ways to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Results: The study found that 64% of participants expressed hesitancy towards receiving COVID-19 booster doses. Factors contributing to this hesitancy were female gender, current smoking, pregnancy, concerns about vaccine side effects, a lack of confidence in vaccine efficacy, COVID-19 infection history, low perceived susceptibility to infection, and reliance on media information. Additionally, increased trust in the value of adult vaccination, adhering to recommendations of treating physician/scientist opinions, and prior adherence to vaccination were positively associated with regular COVID-19 vaccinations. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data identified four key strategies to overcome student vaccine hesitancy: enhancing health literacy, validating vaccine safety through further research, alleviating pandemic-related fears, and addressing distrust in authorities and opposition to mandatory vaccination. Conclusions: Our findings provide insights into the intricate factors and barriers of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among university students, thus emphasizing the need for more targeted interventions. Full article

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on nursing students by intertwining academic demands with health concerns, a situation that had effects on their emotional well-being and academic engagement. Factors such as sociodemographic characteristics and health status determined their experiences. Understanding these dynamics is crucial, especially in the context of the Spanish health and education systems. The present study aimed to adapt and assess the psychometric properties of the AMICO scale in the context of nursing students in Spain. Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study. The study was carried out in University Nursing Centers in Spain using a non-probabilistic snowball sampling method. The total sample consisted of 1197 nursing students. Sociodemographic variables were included, as well as questions related to general health and some more specific questions about COVID-19. For the reliability study, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. An exploratory factor analysis using principal components and varimax rotation was applied, excluding items with loadings below 0.05. Results: In this study, 1197 nursing students residing in Spain participated, of whom 85% were female, with a mean age of 22.35 years. Despite 73.9% of the students being isolated due to exposure to COVID-19, they rated their general health positively (7.86). Females reported higher levels of anxiety. The AMICO scale revealed significant differences according to gender, health, and vaccination history, showing high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.913). Conclusions: The two-factor structure of the AMICO scale was validated, confirming its suitability for assessing anxiety and fear among nursing students in Spain. The study revealed significant emotional distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among women, high-risk individuals, and those fully vaccinated. These findings accentuate the need for higher education institutions to implement targeted mental health interventions during public health emergencies. Future longitudinal research should examine the evolving psychological impact of such crises and the mitigating roles of quality of life, sleep, and physical activity. Full article