SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Exploring Healthcare Workers' Awareness and Perception of Vaccine Effectiveness: A National Survey During the First Week of WHO Variant Alert

  1. Mohamad-Hani Temsah
  2. Fadi Aljamaan
  3. Shuliweeh Alenezi
  4. Khalid Alhasan
  5. Abdulkarim Alrabiaah
  6. Rasha Assiri
  7. Rolan Bassrawi
  8. Ali Alhaboob
  9. Fatimah Alshahrani
  10. Mohammed Alarabi
  11. Ali Alaraj
  12. Nasser S. Alharbi
  13. Rabih Halwani
  14. Amr Jamal
  15. Ayman Al-Eyadhy
  16. Naif AbdulMajeed
  17. Lina Alfarra
  18. Wafa Almashdali
  19. Amel Fayed
  20. Fahad Alzamil
  21. Mazin Barry
  22. Ziad A. Memish
  23. Jaffar A. Al-Tawfiq
  24. Sarah Alsubaie

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant spreads in several countries, healthcare workers' (HCWs) perceptions and worries regarding vaccine effectiveness and boosters warrant reassessment.

Methods

An online questionnaire among HCWs in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed from Dec 1st−6th 2021 to assess their perceptions, vaccine advocacy to the Omicron variant, and their perception of the effectiveness of infection prevention measures and vaccination to prevent its spread, their Omicron variant related worries in comparison to the other variants, and their agreement with mandatory vaccination in general for adults.

Results

Among the 1,285 HCW participants, two-thirds were female, 49.8 % were nurses, 46.4% were physicians, and 50.0% worked in tertiary care hospitals. 66.9% considered vaccination to be the most effective way to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant and future variants. The respondents however perceived social distancing (78.0%), universal masking (77.8%), and avoiding unnecessary travel (71.4%) as slightly superior to vaccination to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants. HCWs aging 55 or older agreed significantly with vaccine ineffectiveness to control Omicron spread, while those who believed in non-pharmacological infection prevention measures agreed significantly with vaccination for that purpose. Male HCWs had a significant agreement with mandatory vaccination of all eligible adult populations. On the other hand, unwilling HCWs to receive the vaccine had strong disagreements with mandatory vaccination.

Conclusions

The current study in the first week of Omicron showed that only two-thirds of HCWs felt that vaccination was the best option to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant, indicating the need for further motivation campaigns for vaccination and booster dose. HCWs had a strong belief in infection prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants that should be encouraged and augmented.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpubh.2022.878159
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.27.21268431v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.27.21268431: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The Institutional Review Board at the College of Medicine and King Saud University approved the study (approval 21/01039/IRB).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The SPSS IBM statistical analysis program Version#21 was used for the statistical data analysis.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.2 Study limitations and strengths (Hani): While this research is subject to the limitation of cross-sectional studies, such as sampling, response, and recall biases, still, this study is among the first to explore perceptions and worries among HCWs considering the new SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. As with the evolving variants situations, HCWs’ experiences and perceptions are likely to change. Moreover, HCWs’ experiences may differ from one setting to another.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.27.21268431v1 on medRxiv