<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Copyrighted Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is perhaps the most widely used and validated tool in assessing burnout among different occupations and health care professionals compared to the free to use Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of these tools in comparison with MBI among a subset of Nigerian resident doctors. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A cross-sectional survey with reliability of the burnout scales calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was assessed by principal component analysis and correlating dimensions within each burnout tool with one another using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The criterion validity of each dimension was assessed for the ability of independent variables to predict their scores using multiple linear regression. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Copenhagen Personal Burnout dimension had the highest Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.91. MBI-Emotional Exhaustion had the highest correlations with Copenhagen Work-related, Copenhagen Personal-related, and Oldenburg Exhaustion burnout dimensions. Only the multiple regression models for Copenhagen personal (<i>p</i> = 0.04) and work-related (<i>p</i> = 0.02) burnout dimensions were significant, with the specialty of the residents being the significant independent variable in both models. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> CBI and OLBI have high internal consistency and reliability among the subset of resident doctors recruited into this study, CBI dimensions had the best predictive and construct validity and can be used as valid alternative to MBI.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accounts for over 92 million confirmed cases worldwide, with over 2.06 million deaths. In the past year, more than 290 candidate vaccines have been tested; COVID-19 vaccine development was sped up, with shortened timeline, due to the urgent global need in the face of the pandemic. In addition, people with the highest risk of contracting the disease, such as health workers with a high risk of exposure, elderlies, and people with underlying comorbidities, were prioritized with vaccination rollout. The article narratively reviewed original and review articles available on PubMed and Google Scholar related to the theme to provide up-to-date information. The different templates developed and studied for COVID-19 vaccines include the whole-virus vaccine, viral vector vaccine, nucleic acid (deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid), and protein subunit vaccine. Myths impede vaccine uptake in this part of the globe. Adopting these myths leads to sharing and spreading, which negatively impacts the prevention of COVID-19 and vaccine uptake. Adverse event following immunizations (AEFIs) is classified based on severity, from minor to severe. The minor ones are common events that pose no potential health risks to the receiver of the vaccine. The type determines the safety profile, severity, and frequency of AEFIs observed with the vaccine administration. Overall, this pandemic has heightened the global level of threat awareness; it has also provided motivation to prepare for future pandemics by developing new vaccines.

No abstract