Search

Background: 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. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Discussion: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The present study aimed to review probiotics' clinical efficacy in preventing infectious diseases among hospitalized patients in ICU and non‐ICU wards. Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Open Grey, and Google Scholar was conducted for eligible publications from 2002 to 2020 following the requirements outlined in the PRISMA guideline. The search strategy was based on the combination of the following terms: "probiotics," "prebiotics," "synbiotics," and "cross‐infection." The logical operators "AND" (or the equivalent operator for the databases) and "OR" (e.g., probiotics OR prebiotics OR synbiotics) were used. Results: The results indicated that the probiotic consumption caused a significant reduction in antibiotic‐associated diarrhea (AAD) and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in 2/8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating AAD/CDI. Also, 5/12 clinical trials highlighted the considerable effects of probiotics on the reduction or prevention of ventilator associated pneumoniae (VAP), so the mean prevalence of VAP was lower in the probiotic group than in the placebo group. The total rate of nosocomial infections among preterm infants was nonsignificantly higher in the probiotic group compared to the control group. Conclusion: This systematic review shows that the administration of probiotics has moderate preventive or mitigating effects on the occurrence of VAP in ICU patients, CDI, AAD, and nosocomial infections among children. Consequently, applying antibiotics along with the proper probiotic species can be advantageous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]