Dataset Information

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members.

ABSTRACT: Mass vaccination is effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated individuals. However, it remains unclear how effectively COVID-19 vaccines prevent people from spreading the virus to their close contacts. Using nationwide administrative datasets on SARS-CoV-2 infections, vaccination records, demographics, and unique household IDs, we conducted an observational cohort study to estimate the direct and indirect effectiveness of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infections among vaccinated healthcare workers and their unvaccinated household members. Our estimates for adults imply indirect effectiveness of 39.1% (95% CI: -7.1% to 65.3%) two weeks and 39.0% (95% CI: 18.9% to 54.0%) eight weeks after the second dose. We find that the indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines within households is smaller for unvaccinated children than for adults and statistically insignificant. Here, we show that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections not only among vaccinated individuals but also among unvaccinated adult household members in a real-world setting.

SUBMITTER: Salo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8897446 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members.

Salo Jussipekka J Hägg Milla M Kortelainen Mika M Leino Tuija T Saxell Tanja T Siikanen Markku M Sääksvuori Lauri L

Nature communications 20220304 1

Mass vaccination is effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated individuals. However, it remains unclear how effectively COVID-19 vaccines prevent people from spreading the virus to their close contacts. Using nationwide administrative datasets on SARS-CoV-2 infections, vaccination records, demographics, and unique household IDs, we conducted an observational cohort study to estimate the direct and indirect effectiveness of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infections amo ...[more]

PMID: 35246536

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12-2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44-3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03-3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16-3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40-7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines. Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.

Project description:BackgroundThe devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.Aims and objectivesTo synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.MethodsThis is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.Exclusion1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.ResultsThe review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.ConclusionThe review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.Tweetable abstractTo mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.

Dataset Information

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members.

Publications

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets