Search

Abstract Background COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness declines months after vaccination. Therefore, it is likely that during the next few years, people may be repeatedly offered a booster vaccine to enhance humoral immunity levels. A growing number of people are questioning whether the benefits of a booster vaccine outweigh the side-effects. Objective This study aims (1) to identify the most frequently reported side-effects after different doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, (2) and the longest lasting symptoms; and (3) to predict the likelihood of having moderate-to-severe side-effects after a booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccine given individual- and vaccine-specific characteristics. Design, setting, and participants Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study in primary health care providers (PHCPs) in Belgium conducted between December 2020 and December 2021, and in February-March 2023. Methods In nine subsequent surveys over a period of 2 years vaccine dose-number and side-effects after COVID-19 vaccines were collected. A Generalized Estimation Equations approach on the data of the first and second booster dose was used to investigate the probability of having moderate-to-severe side-effects after mRNA booster vaccination. Predictive performance of a binary classifier was assessed by looking at discrimination (i.e., quantified in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). The final prediction model was validated using data with regard to the third booster by assessing misclassification rate, sensitivity and specificity. Results In total, 11% of the PHCPs had moderate-to-severe side-effects after their booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The most common side-effects of COVID-19 mRNA doses included fatigue, local pain at the injection site, general pains, and headache. These side-effects typically lasted for a median of 1 to 2 days. The final model included five predictors: sex, alcohol consumption, history of moderate-to-severe side-effects after any previous dose, recent COVID-19 infection, and the booster dose-number (first, second). Having experienced moderate-to-severe side-effects after any previous dose was the strongest predictor of moderate-to-severe side-effects following an mRNA vaccine booster, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.64 (95% CI: 2.80–4.75). The OR for female sex was 1.49 (95% CI: 1.21–1.84) implying that females have a higher odds of moderate-to-severe side-effects following booster vaccination. The differences in effect for booster dose-number, alcohol consumption and recent COVID-19 infection was not significant. Conclusion and relevance COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination implies a low prevalence of moderate-to-severe side-effects among PHCPs, with a short median duration of symptoms if any. The strongest predictors are a history of moderate-to-severe side-effects after any previous dose and being female. These reassuring findings can help addressing concerns about booster vaccination and encourage their uptake. Trial Registration NCT04779424 (registration date: 2021-02-22).

Introduction: Breaking bad news (BBN) in the emergency department (ED) represents a challenging and stressful situation for physicians. Many medical students and residents feel stressed and uncomfortable with such situations because of insufficient training. Our randomized controlled study aimed to assess the efficacy of a four-hour BBN simulation-based training on perceived self-efficacy, the BBN process, and communication skills. Methods: Medical students and residents were randomized into a 160-hour ED clinical rotation without a formal BBN curriculum (control group [CG], n = 31) or a 156-hour ED clinical rotation and a four-hour BBN simulation-based training (training group [TG], n = 37). Both groups were assessed twice: once at the beginning of the rotation (pre-test) and again four weeks later. Assessments included a BBN evaluation via a simulation with two actors playing family members and the completion of a questionnaire on self-efficacy. Two blinded raters assessed the BBN process with the SPIKES (a delivery protocol for delivering bad news) competence form and communication skills with the modified BBN Assessment Schedule. Results: Group-by-time effects adjusted by study year revealed a significant improvement in TG as compared with CG on self-efficacy (P < 0.001), the BBN process (P < 0.001), and communication skills (P < 0.001). TG showed a significant gain regarding the BBN process (+33.3%, P < 0.001). After the training, students with limited clinical experience prior to the rotation showed BBN performance skills equal to that of students in the CG who had greater clinical experience. Conclusion: A short BBN simulation-based training can be added to standard clinical rotations. It has the potential to significantly improve self-efficacy, the BBN process, and communication skills.

Introduction Treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) to benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRA) can be challenging and lengthy. BZRA are prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, and though guidelines recommend an initial prescription duration of one to four weeks, this is frequently longer. Understanding the multiple challenges associated with withdrawing from BZRA and exploring the nuance and complexities from the patient’s perspective is crucial. Methods In this study, we explore the experiences of SUD to BZRA with nineteen users, who have subsequently either stabilized, reduced, or discontinued their usage. The data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Findings Our study identified five key themes regarding the long-term use of BZRA which address inadequate patient information, strict adherence to prescribed medication, minimal involvement in cessation plans, respecting patient readiness for tapering and personalized tapering approaches. Conclusion These findings indicate that patients’ blind trust in their providers can prevent them from voicing concerns, highlighting the importance of an authentic and collaborative relationship between the patient and healthcare provider, while respecting patient autonomy. The goal-oriented care approach could improve BZRA management by aligning treatment with individual goals, enhancing satisfaction, and addressing the complexities of long-term use and withdrawal.

When COVID-19 vaccines were implemented, nursing home residents (NHRs) and staff (NHS) in Belgium were prioritized for vaccination. To characterize the vaccine response over time in this population and to identify poorly responding groups, we assessed antibody concentrations two (T1), four (T2) and six months (T3) after primary course BNT162b2 vaccination in six groups of infection-naive/infection-primed NHRs/NHS, with/without comorbidity (NHRs only). Participant groups (N = 125 per group) were defined within a national serosurveillance study in nursing homes, based on questionnaire data. Dried blood spots were analyzed using ELISA for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 S1RBD IgG antibodies. Among all groups, antibody concentrations significantly decreased between T1 and T2/T3, all with a ≥70% decrease at T3, except for infection-primed staff (−32%). Antibody concentrations among infection-naive NHRs were 11.96 times lower than those among infection-primed NHR, while the latter were comparable (x1.05) to infection-primed NHS. The largest proportion [13% (95% CI: 11–24%)] of vaccine non-responders was observed in the group of infection-naive NHRs with comorbidities. A longer interval between infection and vaccination (≥3 months) elicited higher antibody responses. Our data retrospectively show the necessity of timely COVID-19 booster vaccination. Infection-naive NHRs require special attention regarding immune monitoring in future epidemics or pandemics.

Background: Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (BZD/Z) are frequently prescribed for longer than recommended. Through their interactions with patients taking BZD/Z, primary care and mental health professionals play a key role in the management of this medication. Aim: To explore how primary care and mental health care professionals set treatment goals with users of long-term BZD/Z. Design & setting: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with professionals from mental health, addiction care, and primary care practices in Belgium. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, online and in person, with 24 professionals working in mental health and primary care. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed. Results: Seven themes were identified from the analysis. Professionals tended not to use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) standard to diagnose a BZD/Z substance use disorder. They described criteria based on their experience. They identified diverse types of patients that influence their choice of treatment goals. Professionals appeared to position themselves according to their own treatment goals for their patients, either by promoting the goal of abstinence or harm reduction. Some of them reported feeling trapped into continuing to prescribe and considered BZD/Z withdrawal to be difficult. Some were afraid to engage in a conversation that might break the bond of trust with the patient. Few professionals mentioned patient participation in the treatment goal setting. They asked for targeted withdrawal recommendations, perceiving the current recommendations to be too broad. Conclusion: Whether primary care or mental health care professionals are more in favour of a total abstinence or a harm reduction approach to BZD/Z, professionals should be guided towards greater patient participation in setting and evaluating goals with patients taking BZD/Z.

New COVID-19 strains and waning vaccine effectiveness prompted initiatives for booster vaccination. In Belgium, healthcare providers (HCPs) received a second booster in July 2022, with eligible individuals receiving a third in autumn. Primary HCPs (PHCPs) play a crucial role in healthcare organization and patient communication. This study, conducted in February–March 2023, surveyed 1900 Belgian PHCPs to assess their views on periodic COVID-19 boosters for themselves and their patients. The survey included questions on sociodemographic information, willingness to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, reasons for acceptance or refusal, confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy, and views on booster recommendations. Overall, 86% of participants were willing to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, motivated by self-protection, patient well-being, and the uninterrupted delivery of healthcare services. Factors influencing booster refusal included not being a general practitioner (GP) or GP trainee, working in Wallonia or Brussels, and lacking vaccine confidence. Although 243 participants would not take boosters periodically, only 74 would not recommend it. Regarding administration, 59% supported pharmacist involvement in COVID-19 vaccination. Further qualitative analysis of 290 PHCPs’ responses revealed varying recommendations, including specific roles like nurses, organizational structures, and collaborative approaches. This study highlights the need to address vaccine confidence, regional disparities, and PHCP roles in booster implementation.

In Belgium, nursing home (NH) staff (NHS) and residents were prioritised for the initial COVID-19 vaccination and successive booster doses. The vaccination campaign for the first booster started in September 2021 in Belgian NH. Our first study about vaccine hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in Belgian NHS already showed a degree of fear for the primary vaccination course (T1). This new study aims to evaluate vaccine hesitancy to get the first booster (T2) in a population of fully vaccinated (with two doses) NHS. A random stratified sample of NHS who received the primary vaccination course (N = 954) completed an online questionnaire on COVID-19 booster hesitancy (between 25/11/2021 and 22/01/2022). NHS who hesitated or refused the booster were asked for the main reason for their hesitation/refusal. Overall, 21.0 % of our population hesitated before, were still hesitating or refused the booster, NHS that were not hesitant at T1 being 5.7 times less likely to hesitate to get the first booster dose (Adjusted OR 0.179, 95 % CI: 0.120, 0.267). Although there was a slight reduction (23.5 % to 20.1 %) in the proportion of NHS who hesitated/refused vaccination at T1 compared to T2 (p = 0.034), the fear of unknown effects was the principal reason for hesitation/refusal, already mentioned in our first study. NHS were not reassured concerning their initial fears. Given the likelihood that booster vaccinations will be necessary over the coming years, a communication strategy specific to NHS should be implemented.

AbstractBackground Nursing home residents (NHR) and staff have been disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and were therefore prioritised in the COVID-19 vaccination strategy. However, frail older adults, like NHR, are known to have decreased antibody responses upon vaccination targeting other viral antigens.Objectives As real-world data on vaccine responsiveness, we assessed the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Belgian NHR and staff during the primary COVID-19 vaccination campaign.Methods In total, we tested 1629 NHR and 1356 staff across 69 Belgian NHs for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies using rapid tests. We collected socio-demographic and COVID-19-related medical data through questionnaires. Sampling occurred between 1 February and 24 March 2021, in a randomly sampled population that received none, one or two BNT162b2 vaccine doses.Results We found that during the primary vaccination campaign with 59% of the study population fully vaccinated, 74% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Among fully vaccinated individuals only, fewer residents tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (77%) than staff (98%), suggesting an impaired vaccine-induced antibody response in the elderly, with lowest seroprevalences observed among infection naïve residents. COVID-19 vaccination status and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were predictors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Alternatively, age ≥ 80 years old, the presence of comorbidities and high care dependency predicted SARS-CoV-2 seronegativity in NHR.Conclusion These findings highlight the need for further monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity upon vaccination in the elderly population, as their impaired humoral responses could imply insufficient protection against COVID-19.Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04738695).

Abstract Introduction To reduce inappropriate polypharmacy, deprescribing should be part of patients’ regular care. Yet deprescribing is difficult to implement, as shown in several studies. Understanding patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing at the individual and country level may reveal effective ways to involve older adults in decisions about medications and help to implement deprescribing in primary care settings. In this study we aim to investigate older adults’ perceptions and views on deprescribing in different European countries. Specific objectives are to investigate the patients’ willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and to have herbal or dietary supplements reduced or stopped, the role of the Patient Typology (on medication perspectives), and the impact of the patient-GP relationship in these decisions. Methods and analysis This cross-sectional survey study has two parts: Part A and Part B. Data collection for Part A will take place in nine countries, in which per country 10 GPs will recruit 10 older patients (≥65 years old) each (n = 900). Part B will be conducted in Switzerland only, in which an additional 35 GPs will recruit five patients each and respond to a questionnaire themselves, with questions about the patients’ medications, their willingness to deprescribe those, and their patient-provider relationship. For both Part A and part B, a questionnaire will be used to assess the willingness of older patients with polypharmacy to have medications deprescribed and other relevant information. For Part B, this same questionnaire will have additional questions on the use of herbal and dietary supplements. Discussion The international study design will allow comparisons of patient perspectives on deprescribing from different countries. We will collect information about willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and regarding herbal and dietary supplements, which adds important information to the literature on patients’ preferences. In addition, GPs in Switzerland will also be surveyed, allowing us to compare GPs’ and patients’ views and preferences on stopping or reducing specific medications. Our findings will help to understand patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing, contributing to improvements in the design and implementation of deprescribing interventions that are better tailored to patients’ preferences.

Objectives To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium.Design A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study.Setting Primary care in Belgium.Participants Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included.Intervention At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test).Primary and secondary outcome measures The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium.Results 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively.Conclusion The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence.Trial registration number NCT04779424.

Objectives To estimate the prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs).Design Prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up.Setting Primary care in Belgium.Participants Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages (examines, tests, treats) patients were eligible. A convenience sample of 3648 eligible PHCPs from 2001 GP practices registered for this study (3044 and 604 to start in December 2020 and January 2021, respectively). 3390 PHCPs (92,9%) participated in their first testing time point (2820 and 565, respectively) and 2557 PHCPs (70,1%) in the last testing time point (December 2021).Interventions Participants were asked to perform a rapid serological test targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete an online questionnaire at each of maximum eight testing time points.Primary and secondary outcome measures The prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 both after natural infection and after vaccination.Results Among all participants, 67% were women and 77% GPs. Median age was 43 years. The seroprevalence in December 2020 (before vaccination availability) was 15.1% (95% CI 13.5% to 16.6%), increased to 84.2% (95% CI 82.9% to 85.5%) in March 2021 (after vaccination availability) and reached 93.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.9%) in December 2021 (during booster vaccination availability and fourth (delta variant dominant) COVID-19 wave). Among not (yet) vaccinated participants the first monthly incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 2.91% (95% CI 1.80% to 4.01%). The longevity of antibodies is higher in PHCPs with self-reported COVID-19 infection.Conclusions This study confirms that occupational health measures provided sufficient protection when managing patients. High uptake of vaccination resulted in high seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in PHCPs in Belgium. Longevity of antibodies was supported by booster vaccination and virus circulation.Trial registration number NCT04779424.

In the SCOPE study, we monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a national sample of residents and staff from Belgian nursing homes. Here, we report the seroprevalence among infected and infection-naive residents and staff after the primary COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Among 1554 vaccinated nursing home residents and 1082 vaccinated staff from 69 nursing homes in Belgium, we assessed the proportion having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies approximately two (April 2021), four (June 2021), and six months (August 2021) after a two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 vaccine. We measured the seroprevalence using SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid tests and collected socio-demographic and COVID-19 medical data using an online questionnaire. Two months after vaccination (baseline), we found a seroprevalence of 91% (95% CI: 89–93) among vaccinated residents and 99% (95% CI: 98–99) among vaccinated staff. Six months after vaccination, the seroprevalence significantly decreased to 68% (95% CI: 64–72) among residents and to 89% (95% CI; 86–91) among staff (p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was more likely to decrease among infection-naive residents, older residents, or residents with a high care dependency level. These findings emphasize the need for close monitoring of nursing home residents, as a substantial part of this population fails to mount a persistent antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccination.

Introduction Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionally affected by a number of health conditions that are associated with violence, stigma, discrimination, poverty, unemployment or poor healthcare access. In recent years, syndemic theory provided a framework to explore the interactions of these health disparities on the biological and social levels. Research in this field has been increasing for the past 10 years, but methodologies have evolved and sometimes differed from the original concept. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the existing literature on syndemic theory applied to MSM in order to identify knowledge gaps, inform future investigations and expand our understanding of the complex interactions between avoidable health conditions in a vulnerable population.Methods and analysis The proposed scoping review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley with subsequent enhancements by Levac et al, Colquhoun et al and Peters et al as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review. A systematic search of MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ProQuest Sociological Abstracts will be conducted. Reference lists of the included studies will be hand-searched for additional studies. Screening and data charting will be achieved using DistillerSR. Data collating, summarising and reporting will be performed using R and RStudio. Tabular and graphical summaries will be presented, alongside an evidence map and a descriptive overview of the main results.Ethics and dissemination This scoping review does not require ethical approval. Data and code will be made accessible after manuscript submission. Final results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and collaboration with grassroots Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual (LGBTQIA+) organisations.Registration This protocol was registered on manuscript submission on the Open Science Framework at the following address: https://osf.io/jwxtd; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JWXTD.

In Belgium, nursing home staff (NHS) and residents were prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccine hesitancy may have impacted vaccination rates. In this study, a random stratified sample of NHS (N = 1142), vaccinated and unvaccinated, completed an online questionnaire on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (between 31 July and 15 November 2021). NHS who hesitated or refused the vaccine were asked for the main reason for their hesitation/refusal. Those who hesitated, but eventually accepted vaccination, were asked why they changed their minds. Overall, 29.5% of all respondents hesitated before accepting vaccination, were still hesitating, or refused vaccination. Principal reasons were fear of unknown future effects (55.1% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 19.5% who refused), fear of side-effects (12.7% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused), and mistrust in vaccination (10.5% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused). For vaccinated participants who hesitated initially, protecting the vulnerable was the main reason they changed their minds. Given this degree of fear and proposals to mandate vaccination among healthcare workers, communicating with NHS on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine should be prioritised.