COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italy: Predictors of Acceptance, Fence Sitting and Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccination

Background: The hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a global challenge. The need to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine reluctance is critical. Our objectives were to evaluate sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors, as well as attitudes and beliefs that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population of Italy. Methods: A total of 2,015 people were assessed in two waves (March, April and May, 2021). Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals who accepted the vaccination (“accepters”); (2) individuals who refused the vaccination (“rejecters”); and (3) individuals who were uncertain about their attitudes toward the vaccination (“fence sitters”). Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. The strength of the association between the groups and the participants' characteristics was analyzed using a series of multinomial logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation (one for each factor). Results: The “fence sitters” group, when compared to the others, included individuals of younger age, lower educational level, and worsening economic situation in the previous 3 months. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, the following features emerged as the main risk factors for being “fence sitters” (compared with vaccine “accepters”): reporting lower levels of protective behaviors, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and higher conspirative mentality. Higher levels of COVID-19 perceived risk, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and protective behaviors were associated with a higher likelihood of becoming “fence sitters” rather than vaccine “rejecters.” Conclusions: The “fence sitters” profile revealed by this study is intriguing and should be the focus of public programmes aimed at improving adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign

The interplay of perceived risks and benefits in deciding to become vaccinated against COVID-19 while pregnant or breastfeeding: A cross-sectional study in Italy.

The present study examined the role of the perception of risks and benefits for the mother and her babies in deciding about the COVID-19 vaccination. In this cross-sectional study, five hypotheses were tested using data from a convenience sample of Italian pregnant and/or breastfeeding women (N = 1104, July–September 2021). A logistic regression model estimated the influence of the predictors on the reported behavior, and a beta regression model was used to evaluate which factors influenced the willingness to become vaccinated among unvaccinated women. The COVID-19 vaccination overall risks/benefits tradeoff was highly predictive of both behavior and intention. Ceteris paribus, an increase in the perception of risks for the baby weighed more against vaccination than a similar increase in the perception of risks for the mother. Additionally, pregnant women resulted in being less likely (or willing) to be vaccinated in their status than breastfeeding women, but they were equally accepting of vaccination if they were not pregnant. COVID-19 risk perception predicted intention to become vaccinated, but not behavior. In conclusion, the overall risks/benefits tradeoff is key in predicting vaccination behavior and intention, but the concerns for the baby weigh more than those for the mother in the decision, shedding light on this previously neglected aspect

Clinical course of Coronavirus Disease-19 in patients with haematological malignancies is characterized by a longer time to respiratory deterioration compared to non-haematological ones: results from a case-control study

Background We evaluated clinical features and risk factors for mortality in patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19. Methods Retrospective, case-control (1:3) study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Cases were patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19, controls had COVID-19 without haematological malignancies. Patients were matched for sex, age and time of hospitalization. Results Overall, 66 cases and 198 controls were included in the study. Cases had higher prior corticosteroid use, infection rates, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia and more likely received corticosteroids and antibiotics than controls. Cases had higher respiratory deterioration than controls (78.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.04). Notably, 29% of cases developed respiratory worsening > 10 days after hospital admission, compared to only 5% in controls. Intensive Care Unit admission and mortality were higher in cases than in controls (27% vs 8%, p = 0.002, and 35% vs 10%, p < 0.001). At multivariable analysis, having haematological malignancy [OR4.76, p < 0.001], chronic corticosteroid therapy [OR3.65, p = 0.004], prior infections [OR57.7, p = 0.006], thrombocytopenia [OR3.03, p < 0.001] and neutropenia [OR31.1, p = 0.001], low albumin levels [OR3.1, p = 0.001] and >= 10 days from hospital admission to respiratory worsening [OR3.3, p = 0.002] were independently associated with mortality. In cases, neutropenia [OR3.1, p < 0.001], prior infections [OR7.7, p < 0.001], >= 10 days to respiratory worsening [OR4.1, p < 0.001], multiple myeloma [OR1.5, p = 0.044], the variation of the CT lung score during hospitalization [OR2.6, p = 0.006] and active treatment [OR 4.4, p < 0.001] all were associated with a worse outcome. Conclusion An underlying haematological malignancy was associated with a worse clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. A prolonged clinical monitoring is needed, since respiratory worsening may occur later during hospitalization

The impact of mental health recovery narratives on recipients experiencing mental health problems: Qualitative analysis and change model.

BACKGROUND: Mental health recovery narratives are stories of recovery from mental health problems. Narratives may impact in helpful and harmful ways on those who receive them. The objective of this paper is to develop a change model identifying the range of possible impacts and how they occur. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with experience of mental health problems and recovery (n = 77). Participants were asked to share a mental health recovery narrative and to describe the impact of other people's recovery narratives on their own recovery. A change model was generated through iterative thematic analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Change is initiated when a recipient develops a connection to a narrator or to the events descripted in their narrative. Change is mediated by the recipient recognising experiences shared with the narrator, noticing the achievements or difficulties of the narrator, learning how recovery happens, or experiencing emotional release. Helpful outcomes of receiving recovery narratives are connectedness, validation, hope, empowerment, appreciation, reference shift and stigma reduction. Harmful outcomes are a sense of inadequacy, disconnection, pessimism and burden. Impact is positively moderated by the perceived authenticity of the narrative, and can be reduced if the recipient is experiencing a crisis. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that incorporate the use of recovery narratives, such as peer support, anti-stigma campaigns and bibliotherapy, can use the change model to maximise benefit and minimise harms from narratives. Interventions should incorporate a diverse range of narratives available through different mediums to enable a range of recipients to connect with and benefit from this material. Service providers using recovery narratives should preserve authenticity so as to maximise impact, for example by avoiding excessive editing

The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more: About the COVID-19 vaccines; How to talk to others about them; How to challenge misinformation about the vaccines.Published versio

Clarifying Values: An updated review

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness

QRS pattern and improvement in right and left ventricular function after cardiac resynchronization therapy: a radionuclide study

Predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains a challenge. We evaluated the role of baseline QRS pattern to predict response in terms of improvement in biventricular ejection fraction (EF)

Clarifying values: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret