No abstract

Aims: We aimed to identify the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and suicidality and identify relevant risk and protecting factors among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia. Materials and methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey ( n = 984, convenience sample by approaching all universities in Georgia and some student organizations) using valid instruments (e.g., STAI to assess anxiety, CES-D for depression, and RASS to assess suicidality). We calculated frequencies and prevalence and applied regression analysis and Chi-square tests to identify risk and protecting factors. Findings: Respondents’ mental health had been significantly affected (with a high prevalence of depression (46.7%) and anxiety (79%)) during the pandemic (which coincided with political turmoil and caused an economic crisis) in Georgia. Some of the critical factors affecting mental health were: female sex ( p = .000), bad general health condition (anxiety p = .001, depression p = .004), finances (anxiety and depression p < .001), reduced physical activity (anxiety p < .001, depression p = .014), and a history of self-harming (suicidality p < .001). Less family conflicts (anxiety and depression p < .05), absence of nightmares (anxiety and depression p < .001), moderate or low fears of COVID-19 (anxiety p < .001), and lower substance use (anxiety p = .023) were among the potentially protective factors. International students coped better, despite vulnerability. Medical students had a lower risk of depression. Conclusions: In the complex socioeconomic context, mental health of students in Georgia suffered a lot during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring thorough planning and delivery of student support services in higher educational institutions during and after the pandemic.

No abstract

The COVID-19 vaccination program in the country of Georgia began on March 15, 2021, and reached its peak in the summer of 2021. Throughout the process, individuals had access to over 5.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which were acquired from various sources as reported by the National Center for Disease Control and Public Health (NCDC). Factors such as widespread vaccine hesitancy and low demand led to reduced vaccine uptake, low vaccination rates, and vaccine wastage. As of August 2022, a total of 2,922,000 doses have been administered with less than 35% of the Georgian population, or 1,276,000 people, fully vaccinated with at least two doses. Over 400,000 doses have expired at NCDC's storage facilities due to low demand. Many more doses have been wasted at administration points, and there is a risk of wasting more in the future. The key reasons for wastage are widespread public hesitancy toward the newly developed vaccines, inconsistent policies and communication from government officials, rampant disinformation, and ambiguity from influential bodies in Georgian society. Despite certain limitations, logistics is not among the leading causes of wastage, as Georgia was able to develop a strong cold-chain and vaccine administration infrastructure through years of international cooperation that allowed for efficient management of the COVID-19 vaccination process. Lastly, in addition to establishing a robust reporting system and ensuring transparency of vaccine wastage data, relevant studies based on original data are required to better understand the problem. Conducting studies on health literacy in the country as a baseline for long-term interventions, as well as research that will increasingly evidence-inform further pandemic response are being recommended. K E Y W O R D SGeorgia, hesitancy, policies, Tbilisi, vaccine wastage BACKGROUNDGeorgia is an Eastern European country of 3.7 million, which became a member state of the United Nations in 1992. Since then, the healthcare system of Georgia has become progressively decentralized. Currently, over 90% of healthcare facilities are operated as private "for-profit" institutions. A chronic weakness of this increasingly privatized sector has been primary health care (PHC). This "weakness" became especially apparent with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the PHC sector in Georgia endeavored to build support for and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and distribute them equitably.Large-scale vaccination campaigns, which are often viewed as the principal means of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, have faced significant global challenges, including in the European region [1]. Georgia, which by September 2022 had reported over 1,720,000 cases and 16,900 deaths attributed to COVID-19, started vaccinations on March 15, 2021. The country's COVID-19 vaccination plan, approved in early 2021, aimed to vaccinate 60% of the adult population, or 1.7 million people by This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution l...

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze key COVID-19 pandemic-related policies and national strategic responses in light of Georgia’s political, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.Methods: We applied a policy triangle framework for policy analysis, performed document and media content analysis, and described pandemic trends statistically.Results: Early introduction of stringent restrictive measures largely prevented a first wave in March–May 2020. This was communicated as a success story, prompting a public success perception. With unpopular restrictions lifted and hesitancy to embrace evidence-informed policymaking ahead of nationwide parliamentary elections, SARS-CoV-2 infection spread rapidly and was met with an insufficiently coordinated effort. Facing health system capacity saturation an almost complete lockdown was re-introduced in late 2020. Factors as delayed immunization campaign, insufficient coordination and, again, little evidence-informed policymaking eventually led to another devastating COVID-19 wave in summer of 2021.Conclusion: Georgia’s pandemic health policy response was adversely impacted by a volatile political environment. National pandemic preparedness and response might benefit from an independent body with appointment procedures and operations shielded from political influences to effectively inform and communicate evidence-based pandemic policy.