Search

Despite significant advancements in worldwide vaccination, the coronavirus 2019 pandemic has disrupted primary care and vaccination programs. This study aimed to assess parents' attitudes toward compulsory childhood vaccination and the determinants of vaccination acceptance in Algeria based on the Health Belief Model (HBM). Using the snowball and convenience sampling methods, a cross-sectional study was conducted from November 1 to December 15, 2022, among parents with at least 1 child eligible for compulsory vaccination. Data were collected using an online questionnaire with 3 sections: parents' sociodemographic characteristics, children's characteristics, and a questionnaire based on the HBM. A total of 391 parents responded to the survey. Among the respondents, 90% believed that compulsory childhood vaccines could effectively protect against infectious diseases and 87.5% reported a scarcity of information available on vaccines. The logistic regression model showed that easy access to healthcare facilities significantly increased vaccine uptake by 98% compared to difficult accessibility (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.02; 95%CI = 0.001-0.12; P < .001). Parents who said no and maybe [i.e., when asked if their children can spread illness to others when not vaccinated] showed significantly lower vaccine uptake by 25.49 (AOR = 25.49; 95%CI = 1.95-470.29; P = .019) and 12.16 (AOR = 12.16; 95%CI = 1.65-111.62; P = .018), respectively when compared to those who answered yes. Parents who reported that vaccines may weaken natural immunity had significantly higher odds of vaccination uptake by 92% than those who answered yes (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI = 0.01-1.26; P = .033). Identifying factors that influence vaccine acceptance can offer policymakers valuable insights for designing strategic intervention programs aimed at increasing acceptance rates., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Mental disorders are currently a global public health concern, particularly after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Mental health services gradually transitioned to teleservices, employing various methods like texting and videoconferencing. This meta-analysis aimed mainly to quantify the acceptability of tele-mental health services among both beneficiaries and providers. Secondary objectives included quantifying the usability of and satisfaction with these services., Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the following databases PubMed Central, SAGE, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Medline, and EBSCO according to Preferred Reporting Items of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines until December 2022., Results: Out of 3366 search results, 39 studies fully met the inclusion criteria. The pooled acceptability of tele-mental health services among beneficiaries was [71.0% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 63.0 - 78.5%, I 2  = 98%]. Using meta-regression, four key factors contributed to this heterogeneity (R 2  = 99.75%), namely, year of publication, type of mental disorder, participant category, and the quality of included studies. While acceptability among providers was [66.0% (95%CI, 52.0 - 78.0%), I 2  = 95%]. The pooled usability of tele-mental health services among participants was [66.0% (95%CI, 50.0 - 80.0%), I 2  = 83%]. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant results (p = 0.003), indicating that usability was higher among beneficiaries compared to providers., Conclusions: The study highlighted a high acceptability of tele-mental health services. These findings suggest a promising outlook for the integration and adoption of tele-mental health services and emphasize the importance of considering user perspectives and addressing provider-specific challenges to enhance overall service delivery and effectiveness., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Aim: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the concomitant administration (co-administration) of inactivated seasonal influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, encouraging the practice for the 2021-2022 flu season. This study aimed to assess the acceptance of simultaneously receiving the seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) and the COVID-19 vaccine in a single administration to reduce vaccine rejection towards the COVID-19 vaccination., Methods: An online-based cross-section survey was conducted from 1 September to 9 November 2022, in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) through distributing the survey on different social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and WhatsApp. We used the multi-level model to assess the variation of vaccine countries across EMR countries., Results: In total, 3300 participants were included in this survey from 11 countries distributed in the EMR. More than one-third (40.7%) were aged 18-25 years, 60.6% were females, 54.0% had a university degree, 43.1% had previous COVID-19, and 41.9% had relatives or friends who died from COVID-19. In total, 43.3% accepted this combination because it is less costly (9%), safer (18%), more effective (17%), and has fewer doses (19%). Rejection of this combination was due to fear of side effects (31%), and no studies have been published on their effects (31%). There was a significant difference across countries, which accounted for 6% of the variance in the log-odds of accepting the combined vaccination. Multi-level analysis revealed that being male, African and losing a family member or friend from COVID-19 increased the acceptance of the theoretical combined vaccines. Additionally, the number of doses taken of the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines separately significantly affected the combined vaccine acceptance. However, previous COVID-19 infection and older age reduced the odds of accepting the combined vaccines. Occupational level, social status and educational level didn't significantly affect the acceptance odds., Conclusions: We can conclude that combining SIV and COVID-19 vaccines in one shot increased the overall acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine rejectors.