Acceptance-Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination and Factors Affecting It in Adults: Systematic Review Study.

Despite the advent of vaccines against COVID-19, there is considerable variation in the acceptance and hesitancy towards the vaccination program across different countries. The objective of this study was to ascertain the prevalence of hesitancy and acceptance regarding the use of the vaccine against the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, and to identify the factors that influence these attitudes. All the cross-sectional studies were retrieved from the PubMed databases, the Web of Science ISI, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Papers published in English between 2 November 2019 and 23 May 2023 were subjected to further assessment based on their title, abstract, and main text, with a view to ensuring their relevance to the present study. Following an exhaustive investigation, 59 studies were selected for screening in this systematic review. The most frequently employed method of data collection was the online survey. The study sample comprised 59.12% women and 40.88% men, with ages ranging from 16 to 78 years. The proportion of individuals accepting the vaccine ranged from 13% to 96%, while the proportion of those exhibiting hesitancy ranged from 0% to 57.5%. The primary reasons for accepting the COIVD-19 vaccine were a heightened perception of risk associated with the virus and a general trust in the healthcare system. The most frequently cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy in the context of the ongoing pandemic include concerns about the potential dangers of the vaccines, the rapid pace of their development, the possibility of adverse effects (such as infertility or death), and the assumption that they have been designed to inject microchips. A variety of socio-demographic factors are implicated in determining the rate of vaccine acceptance. A number of socio-demographic factors have been identified as influencing vaccine acceptance. These include high income, male gender, older age, marriage, the presence of older children who have been vaccinated and do not have chronic diseases, high education, and health insurance coverage. Eliminating vaccine hesitancy or increasing vaccine acceptance is a crucial factor that should be addressed through various means and in collaboration with regulatory and healthcare organizations.

Darbandi A ，Koupaei M ，Kiani P ，Ghanavati R ，Najafi P ，Hosseini J ，Shokouhamiri MR ，Asadi A ，Parsapour R ... -  《Immunity Inflammation and Disease》

Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccine and Booster Acceptance and Hesitancy Among Autistic Adults in Pennsylvania: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Survey Data.

The autistic population is rapidly increasing; meanwhile, autistic adults face disproportionate risks for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Limited research indicates that autistic individuals have been accepting of initial vaccination, but research has yet to document this population's perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 boosters. This study aims to identify person-level and community characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccination and booster acceptance among autistic adults, along with self-reported reasons for their stated preferences. Understanding this information is crucial in supporting this vulnerable population given evolving booster guidelines and the ending of the public health emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic. Data are from a survey conducted in Pennsylvania from April 11 to September 12, 2022. Demographic characteristics, COVID-19 experiences, and COVID-19 vaccine decisions were compared across vaccination status groups. Chi-square analyses and 1-way ANOVA were conducted to test for significant differences. Vaccination reasons were ranked by frequency; co-occurrence was identified using phi coefficient correlation plots. Most autistic adults (193/266, 72.6%) intended to receive or received the vaccine and booster, 15% (40/266) did not receive or intend to receive any vaccine, and 12.4% (33/266) received or intended to receive the initial dose but were hesitant to accept booster doses. Reasons for vaccine acceptance or hesitancy varied by demographic factors and COVID-19 experiences. The most significant were previously contracting COVID-19, desire to access information about COVID-19, and discomfort with others not wearing a mask (all P=.001). County-level factors, including population density (P=.02) and percentage of the county that voted for President Biden (P=.001) were also significantly associated with differing vaccination acceptance levels. Reasons for accepting the initial COVID-19 vaccine differed among those who were or were not hesitant to accept a booster. Those who accepted a booster were more likely to endorse protecting others and trusting the vaccine as the basis for their acceptance, whereas those who were hesitant about the booster indicated that their initial vaccine acceptance came from encouragement from someone they trusted. Among the minority of those hesitant to any vaccination, believing that the vaccine was unsafe and would make them feel unwell were the most often reported reasons. Intention to receive or receiving the COVID-19 vaccination and booster was higher among autistic adults than the population that received vaccines in Pennsylvania. Autistic individuals who accepted vaccines prioritized protecting others, while autistic individuals who were vaccine hesitant had safety concerns about vaccines. These findings inform public health opportunities and strategies to further increase vaccination and booster rates among generally accepting autistic adults, to better support the already strained autism services and support system landscape. Vaccination uptake could be improved by leveraging passive information diffusion to combat vaccination misinformation among those not actively seeking COVID-19 information to better alleviate safety concerns.

Shea L ，Cooper D ，Ventimiglia J ，Frisbie S ，Carlton C ，Song W ，Salzer M ，Lee B ，Hotez E ，Vanness DJ ... -  《JMIR Public Health and Surveillance》

Understanding the COVID-19 vaccine uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy in Ethiopia and Tanzania: a scoping review.

The development and implementation of COVID-19 vaccines have been a breakthrough in controlling the pandemic. However, the vaccination coverage in most low-income countries remains very low due to critical vaccine shortage and profound hesitancy. In this scoping review, we aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy in Ethiopia and Tanzania. The search was made in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Only original research articles focusing on vaccine acceptance and hesitancy were included. The studies selected for a full read were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. A total of 76 articles were included in the study, with 74 of them coming from Ethiopia. The study found an increasing trend in vaccine uptake over time. However, there was also an increase in hesitancy and a decline in willingness to receive the vaccine. The willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in Ethiopia ranged from 18.5 to 88%. The main reasons for "vaccine hesitancy" included fear of side effects, concerns about long-term safety, doubts about vaccine effectiveness, lack of information, vaccine fast-tracking, and religious beliefs. The study also found that younger individuals, females, and pregnant women were less willing to receive the vaccine. The adverse events reported among vaccinated individuals were mostly mild. Most of the studies operationalised vaccine acceptance-hesitancy as dichotomous variables. However, the historical, political, and socio-cultural context in which vaccine acceptance and hesitancy occur was not given any attention. While there is a good amount of data from Ethiopia describing patterns of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among different populations over time, there is limited information from Tanzania due to the late arrival of the vaccine and limited published articles. We have observed a paradox involving two seemingly conflicting trends: an increase in vaccination rates/coverage and "anti-vax." Most studies have simplified vaccine acceptance-hesitancy as an "either-or" incident, without considering its dynamic nature and occurrence within a broader political, social, and cultural context. Therefore, it is crucial to explore approaches that can enhance our understanding of the vaccine acceptance-hesitancy phenomenon, in order to improve vaccine trust and uptake.

Gudina EK ，Muro FJ ，Kyala NJ ，Melaku T ，Sørensen JB ，Meyrowitsch DW ，Mekonnen Z ，Dræbel TA ... -  《Frontiers in Public Health》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads. French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting. Depending on their clinical presentation, azithromycin was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and cases refusing the protocol were included as negative controls. Presence and absence of virus at Day6-post inclusion was considered the end point. Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination. Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin. This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Concerns have been raised regarding this article, the substance of which relate to the articles' adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions. Elsevier's Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Team, in collaboration with the journal's co-owner, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC), and with guidance from an impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, Dr. Jim Gray, Consultant Microbiologist at the Birmingham Children's and Women's Hospitals, U.K., conducted an investigation and determined that the below points constituted cause for retraction: • The journal has been unable to confirm whether any of the patients for this study were accrued before ethical approval had been obtained. The ethical approval dates for this article are stated as being 5th and 6th of March 2020 (ANSM and CPP respectively), while the article states that recruitment began in “early March”. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui, has confirmed that the start date for patient accrual was 6th March 2020. The journal has not been able to establish whether all patients could have entered into the study in time for the data to have been analysed and included in the manuscript prior to its submission on the 20th March 2020, nor whether all patients were enrolled in the study upon admission as opposed to having been hospitalised for some time before starting the treatment described in the article. Additionally, the journal has not been able to establish whether there was equipoise between the study patients and the control patients. • The journal has not been able to establish whether the subjects in this study should have provided informed consent to receive azithromycin as part of the study. The journal has concluded that that there is reasonable cause to conclude that azithromycin was not considered standard care at the time of the study. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that azithromycin treatment was not, at the time of the study, an experimental treatment but a possible treatment for, or preventative measure against, bacterial superinfections of viral pneumonia as described in section 2.4 of the article, and as such the treatment should be categorised as standard care that would not require informed consent. This does not fully address the journal's concerns around the use of azithromycin in the study. In section 3.1 of the article, it is stated that six patients received azithromycin to prevent (rather than treat) bacterial superinfection. All of these were amongst the patients who also received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). None of the control patients are reported to have received azithromycin. This would indicate that only patients in the HCQ arm received azithromycin, all of whom were in one center. The recommendations for use of macrolides in France at the time the study was conducted indicate that azithromycin would not have been a logical agent to use as first-line prophylaxis against pneumonia due to the frequency of macrolide resistance amongst bacteria such as pneumococci. These two points suggest that azithromycin would not have been standard practice across southern France at the time the study was conducted and would have required informed consent. • Three of the authors of this article, Dr. Johan Courjon, Prof. Valérie Giordanengo, and Dr. Stéphane Honoré have contacted the journal to assert their opinion that they have concerns regarding the presentation and interpretation of results in this article and have stated they no longer wish to see their names associated with the article. • Author Prof. Valérie Giordanengo informed the journal that while the PCR tests administered in Nice were interpreted according to the recommendations of the national reference center, it is believed that those carried out in Marseille were not conducted using the same technique or not interpreted according to the same recommendations, which in her opinion would have resulted in a bias in the analysis of the data. This raises concerns as to whether the study was partially conducted counter to national guidelines at that time. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that the PCR methodology was explained in reference 17 of the article. However, the article referred to by reference 17 describes several diagnostic approaches that were used (one PCR targeting the envelope protein only; another targeting the spike protein; and three commercially produced systems by QuantiNova, Biofire, and FTD). This reference does not clarify how the results were interpreted. It has also been noted during investigation of these concerns that only 76% (19/25) of patients were viral culture positive, resulting in uncertainty in the interpretation of PCR reports as has been raised by Prof. Giordanengo. As part of the investigation, the corresponding author was contacted and asked to provide an explanation for the above concerns. No response has been received within the deadline provided by the journal. Responses were received by the 3rd and 17th authors, Prof. Philippe Parola and Prof. Philippe Brouqui, respectively, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. These two authors, in addition to 1st author Dr. Philippe Gautret, 13th author Prof. Philippe Colson, and 15th author Prof. Bernard La Scola, disagreed with the retraction and dispute the grounds for it. Having followed due process and concluded the aforementioned investigation and based on the recommendation of Dr. Jim Gray acting in his capacity as independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, the co-owners of the journal (Elsevier and ISAC) have therefore taken the decision to retract the article.

Gautret P ，Lagier JC ，Parola P ，Hoang VT ，Meddeb L ，Mailhe M ，Doudier B ，Courjon J ，Giordanengo V ，Vieira VE ，Tissot Dupont H ，Honoré S ，Colson P ，Chabrière E ，La Scola B ，Rolain JM ，Brouqui P ，Raoult D ... -  《-》