Background: COVID-19 vaccine development is proceeding at an unprecedented pace. Once COVID-19 vaccines become widely available, it will be necessary to maximize public vaccine acceptance and coverage. Objective: This research aimed to analyze the predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Russia. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Russian adults from September 26th to November 9th, 2020. Predictors of the intent to take up COVID-19 vaccination were explored using logistic regression. Results: Out of 876 participants, 365 (41.7%) would be willing to receive the vaccine if it became available. Acceptance increased for a vaccine with verified safety and effectiveness (63.2%). Intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was relatively higher among males (aOR=2.37, 95% CI 1.41-4.00), people with lower monthly income (aOR=2.94, 95%CI 1.32-6.57), and with positive trust in the healthcare system (aOR=2.73, 95% CI 1.76-4.24). The Russian people were more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccine if they believed that the vaccine reduces the risk of virus infection (aOR=8.80, 95%CI 5.21-14.87) or relieves the complications of the disease (aOR=10.46, 95%CI 6.09-17.96). Other barriers such as being unconcerned about side-effects (aOR=1.65, 95%CI 1.03-2.65) and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccination (aOR=2.55, 95%CI 1.60-4.08), also affected acceptance. Conclusions: The study showed the usefulness of the health belief model constructs in understanding the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate in the Russian population. This rate was influenced by sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, and health beliefs. These findings might help guide future efforts for policymakers and stakeholders to improve vaccination rates by enhancing trust in the healthcare system.

AD patients were observed to exhibit significantly less MP, lower serum concentrations of L and Z, poorer vision, and a higher occurrence of AMD when compared to control subjects. A clinical trial in AD patients designed to investigate the impact of macular carotenoid supplementation with respect to MP, visual function, and cognitive function is merited.

Supplementation with the macular carotenoids (MZ, Z, and L) benefits patients with AD, in terms of clinically meaningful improvements in visual function and in terms of MP augmentation.

Three dietary carotenoids, lutein (L), zeaxanthin (Z) and meso-zeaxanthin (MZ) accumulate at the central retina (macula), where they are collectively referred to as macular pigment (MP). MP’s pre-receptoral absorption of blue light and consequential attenuation of the effects of chromatic aberration and light scatter are important for optimal visual function. Furthermore, antioxidant activity of MP’s constituent carotenoids and the same blue light-filtering properties underlie the rationale for its putative protective role for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Supplementation with L, Z and MZ augments MP and enhances visual performance in diseased and non-diseased eyes, and may reduce risk of AMD development and/or progression.

BackgroundAttitudes toward suicidal behaviour can be essential regarding whether patients seek or are offered help. Patients with suicidal behaviour are increasingly treated by mental health outpatient clinics. Our aim was to study attitudes among professionals at outpatient clinics in Stavropol, Russia and Oslo, Norway.MethodsThree hundred and forty-eight (82 %) professionals anonymously completed a questionnaire about attitudes. Professionals at outpatient clinics in Stavropol (n = 119; 94 %) and Oslo (n = 229; 77 %) were enrolled in the study. The Understanding Suicidal Patients (USP) scale (11 = positive to 55 = negative) and the Attitudes Towards Suicide Scale (ATTS) (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) were used. Questions about religious background, perceived competence and experiences of and views on suicidal behaviour and treatment (0 = totally disagree, 4 = totally agree) were examined.ResultsAll groups reported positive attitudes, with significant differences between Stavropol and Oslo (USP score, 21.8 vs 18.7; p < 0.001). Professionals from Stavropol vs. Oslo reported significantly less experience with suicidal patients, courses in suicide prevention (15 % vs 79 %) guidelines in suicidal prevention (23 % vs 90 %), interest for suicide prevention (2.0 vs 2.7; p < 0.001), and agreed more with the ATTS factors: avoidance of communication on suicide (3.1 vs 2.3; p < 0.001), suicide is acceptable (2.9 vs 2.6; p = 002), suicide is understandable (2.9 vs 2.7; p = 0.012) and (to a lesser extent) suicide can be prevented (4.2 vs 4.5; p < 0.001). In both cities, psychiatric disorders (3.4) were considered as the most important cause of suicide. Use of alcohol (2.2 vs 2.8; p < 0.001) was considered less important in Stavropol. Psychotherapy was considered significant more important in Stavropol than Oslo (3.6 vs 3.4; p = 0.001).ConclusionsProfessionals reported positive attitudes towards helping suicidal patients, with significant differences between cities. A need for further education was reported in both cities, but education was less integrated in mental health care in Stavropol than it was in Oslo. In both cities, psychiatric disorders were considered the major reasons for suicide, and psychotherapy was the most important treatment measure.