The impact of vaccine hesitancy on psychological impairment among healthcare workers in a Total Worker Health © approach

Vaccination practice is a well-known individual protective measure for biological risk in healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic vaccine hesitancy has grown among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aims to investigate how vaccine hesitancy influences the psychological burden experienced by healt...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in public health 2024-09, Vol.12, p.1447334
Hauptverfasser: Di Prinzio, Reparata Rosa, Ceresi, Bianca, Arnesano, Gabriele, Dosi, Alessia, Maimone, Mariarita, Vacca, Maria Eugenia, Vinci, Maria Rosaria, Camisa, Vincenzo, Santoro, Annapaola, Raponi, Massimiliano, Tomao, Paola, Vonesch, Nicoletta, Moscato, Umberto, Zaffina, Salvatore, Dalmasso, Guendalina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Vaccination practice is a well-known individual protective measure for biological risk in healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic vaccine hesitancy has grown among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aims to investigate how vaccine hesitancy influences the psychological burden experienced by healthcare workers. This study aimed to explore attitudes of HCWs in acceptance or refusal of vaccinations related to the risk of psychological impairment (PI) and describe the associated occupational factors, during the seasonal flu/COVID-19 vaccination campaign of 2022-2023. 302 HCWs were enrolled in the study. A questionnaire was self-administered, including two scales on the risk of psychological impairment (Psychological Injury Risk Indicator, PIRI) and vaccine hesitancy (Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, AVHS). PIRI scores revealed that 29.8% of participants were at risk of PI. Differences in sex, age, occupational seniority, professional category, and night shifts were found between HCWs at risk of PI and those not at risk. Females registered a four-fold higher risk than males (85.6% vs. 14.4%, χ  = 4.450,  
ISSN:2296-2565
2296-2565
DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1447334