ObjectivesTo address structural determinants and healthcare workers’ (HCWs) physical, mental, emotional and professional challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignExploratory qualitative study with semistructured interviews. Collected data were analysed using thematic analysis.SettingThis qualitative study was undertaken with HCWs who mainly worked in intensive care units in six non-profit hospitals in Vienna, Austria. Data were collected from June 2020 to January 2021.ParticipantsA total of 30 HCWs (13 medical doctors, 11 qualified nursing staff, 2 nurse assistants, 2 physiotherapists and 2 technical/cleaning staff) who were in direct and indirect contact with patients with COVID-19 were included.ResultsThree overall themes resulted as relevant: challenges due to lack of preparedness, structural conditions, and physical and mental health of HCWs. Lack of preparedness included delayed infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines, shortages of personal protective equipment combined with staff shortages (especially of nursing staff) and overworked personnel. Physical and mental strains resulted from HCWs being overworked and working permanently on alert to face medical uncertainties and the critical conditions of patients. HCWs lacked recognition on multiple levels and dealt with stigma and avoidance behaviour of colleagues.ConclusionTo mitigate HCWs’ occupational health risks and staff turnover, we propose context-specific recommendations. The number of available essential workers in care of patients with COVID-19, especially nursing staff, should be carefully planned and increased to avert chronic work overload. Timely training and education in IPC for all HCWs is important. Providing supportive supervision is as essential as appropriate recognition by higher level management and the public.

Data from human and animal studies are highly suggestive of an influence of time of day of vaccine administration on host immune responses. In this population-based study, we aimed to investigate the effect of time of day of administration of a COVID-19 vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), on SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike S1 immunoglobulin (IgG) levels. Participants were 803 university employees who received their first vaccine dose in March 2021, had serology data at baseline and at 3 weeks, and were seronegative at baseline. Antibody levels were determined in binding antibody units (BAU/mL) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Generalized additive models (GAM) and linear regression were used to evaluate the association of time of day of vaccination continuously and in hourly bins with antibody levels at 3 weeks. Participants had a mean age of 42 years (SD: 12; range: 21-74) and 60% were female. Time of day of vaccination was associated non-linearly (“reverse J-shape”) with antibody levels. Morning vaccination was associated with the highest (9:00-10:00 h: mean 292.1 BAU/mL; SD: 262.1), early afternoon vaccination with the lowest (12:00-13:00 h: mean 217.3 BAU/mL; SD: 153.6), and late afternoon vaccination with intermediate (14:00-15:00 h: mean 280.7 BAU/mL; SD: 262.4) antibody levels. Antibody levels induced by 12:00-13:00 h vaccination (but not other time intervals) were significantly lower compared to 9:00-10:00 h vaccination after adjusting for potential confounders (beta coefficient = −75.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −131.3, −20.4). Our findings show that time of day of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has an impact on the magnitude of IgG antibody levels at 3 weeks. Whether this difference persists after booster vaccine doses and whether it influences the level of protection against COVID-19 needs further evaluation.

IntroductionThis protocol will guide and explain the working process of a systematic scoping review on vulnerability assessment tools in the field of infectious disease outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crises. The scoping review will appraise existing tools or methodologies to identify local level vulnerabilities in the context of infectious disease outbreaks and AMR. Due to this focus on infectious threats and AMR, the review also considers articles using a ‘One Health’ approach to assess the vulnerability of individuals, groups and practices in human–animal–environment interactions. Given the broad nature of vulnerability, we aim to allocate studies discerning the process of identifying vulnerable or at-risk groups during a crisis, instead of studies taking vulnerability only as a starting point. Because considerable research has been conducted on vulnerability, disasters and climate change, we will also assemble tools developed from these fields. To our knowledge, this is the first planned systematic scoping review of vulnerability assessment tools for disease outbreaks and AMR, taking into account practices at the human–animal–environment interface that can lead to increased risk of exposure of individuals to infections, pathogen spillovers or epidemics.Methods and analysisTo develop the protocol, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P 2015) in compliance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Explanation and Elaboration. With the assistance of an experienced research librarian, we developed the search strategy, which targeted the following databases: Medline, Global Health database, Web of Science and Embase. A second strategy was developed for Epistemonikos, African Journals Online and Global Index Medicus because these databases do not provide the infrastructure for an advanced search. We consider studies published between 1978 and 2019 and include articles, book chapters, websites and grey literature from selected non-governmental organisations and non-profit organisations working in the health field. We contact them directly regarding whether they are working with or have developed a vulnerability assessment tool. To address the dynamic nature of our investigation, we develop a flow diagram which we continually update to reflect the selection process. Two reviewers (MJ and LL) independently screen the literature and resolve conflicts through discussion rounds. Data extraction will be conducted by four researchers (MJ, LL, EJ and RK) through inductive and deductive coding. Extracted data will be systematically compared and divergences highlighted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required because this study does not involve collection of primary data. The purpose of this review is to disseminate a catalogue of vulnerability assessment tools and a brief summary of key results and recommendations for SoNAR-Global partners in Bangladesh, Ukraine and Uganda. The catalogue will be made publicly available. On th...

No abstract

No abstract