Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Cameroon and Nigeria: a web-based cross-sectional study

Background This study investigated the determinants of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Cameroon and Nigeria. Methods This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2021, including consenting HCWs aged ≥18 y identified using snowball sampling. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as indecisiveness or unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Multilevel logistic regression yielded adjusted ORs (aORs) for vaccine hesitancy. Results We included a total of 598 (about 60% women) participants. Little or no trust in the approved COVID-19 vaccines (aOR=2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.20), lower perception of the importance of the vaccine on their personal health (5.26, 2.38 to 11.6), greater concerns about vaccine-related adverse effects (3.45, 1.83 to 6.47) and uncertainty about colleagues’ acceptability of the vaccine (2.98, 1.62 to 5.48) were associated with higher odds of vaccine hesitancy. In addition, participants with chronic disease (aOR=0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.97) and higher levels of concerns about getting COVID-19 (0.40, 0.18 to 0.87) were less likely to be hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs in this study was high and broadly determined by the perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on personal health, mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines and uncertainty about colleagues’ vaccine acceptability

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Cameroon and Nigeria: a web-based cross-sectional study

Background: This study investigated the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs in Cameroon and Nigeria. Methods: This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2021, including consenting HCWs > 18 years identified using snowball sampling. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as indecisiveness or unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Multilevel logistic regression yielded adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy. Results: We included a total of 598 (~60% women) participants. Little or no trust in the approved COVID-19 vaccines (aOR=2.28, 95% CI=1.24-4.20), lower perception of the importance of the vaccine on their personal health (5.26, 2.38-11.6), greater concerns about vaccine-related adverse effects (3.45, 1.83-6.47), and uncertainty about colleagues’ acceptability of the vaccine (2.98, 1.62-5.48) were associated with higher odds of vaccine hesitancy. In addition, participants with chronic disease (aOR=0.34, 95% CI=0.12-0.97) and higher levels of concerns about getting COVID-19 (0.40, 0.18-0.87) were less likely to be hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs in this study was high and broadly determined by the perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on personal health, mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines, and uncertainty about colleagues’ vaccine acceptability

Clinical outcome of patients with venous thromboembolism on Rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonists : A preliminary report from Douala, Cameroon

Background: Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) which are increasingly used for the management of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials. However, little is known on outcomes in those managed with DOACs compared to Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) in routine clinical practice in Africa. In this preliminary study, we sought to compare the non-fatal clinical outcomes in VTE patients managed with Rivaroxaban versus VKAs in Douala. Materials and Methods: This preliminary study analyzed medical records of VTE patients managed with oral anticoagulants over a 3-year retrospective period in Douala General Hospital and Douala Cardiovascular Center. Outcomes of interest included bleeding, recurrent VTE and post-thrombotic syndrome. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 23. Results: Eighty-seven medical records were identified; Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) was diagnosed in 36.8% and 13.8% had both DVT and pulmonary embolism. Rivaroxaban was prescribed in 77% of cases. We included 82 medical records for the outcome analysis. Adverse clinical outcomes were recorded in 19 (23.2%) medical records amongst which 15 (78.9%) in the Rivaroxaban group. All (4 patients) who bled, 6 (66.7%) patients who had VTE recurrence and 5 (71.4%) patients with post-thrombotic syndrome were managed with Rivaroxaban, however, these were not statistically significantly different from those managed with VKAs. No predictor of clinical outcome was identified. Though more outcomes occurred within 30 days of oral anticoagulation, this was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Three-quarters of VTE patients were managed with Rivaroxaban. Although more bleeding was observed with rivaroxaban group, clinical outcomes were similar with VKA group. This seeds the idea of a prospective study in real life with a larger sample size in Africa. Keywords: Outcomes, Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, Venous thromboembolism, Oral anticoagulation, Cameroo