A substantial impediment to widespread Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination is vaccine hesitancy. Many researchers across scientific disciplines have presented countless studies in favor of COVID-19 vaccination, but misinformation on social media could hinder vaccination efforts and increase vaccine hesitancy. Nevertheless, studying people's perceptions on social media to understand their sentiment presents a powerful medium for researchers to identify the causes of vaccine hesitancy and therefore develop appropriate public health messages and interventions. To the best of the authors' knowledge, previous studies have presented vaccine hesitancy in specific cases or within one scientific discipline ( i.e., social, medical, and technological ). No previous study has presented findings via sentiment analysis for multiple scientific disciplines as follows: ( 1 ) social, ( 2 ) medical, public health, and ( 3 ) technology sciences. Therefore, this research aimed to review and analyze articles related different vaccine hesitancy cases in the last 11 years and understand the application of sentiment analysis on the most important literature findings. Articles were systematically searched in Web of Science , Scopus , PubMed , IEEEXplore , ScienceDirect , and Ovid from January 1, 2010, to July 2021. A total of 30 articles were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles were formed into a taxonomy of literature, along with challenges, motivations, and recommendations for social, medical, and public health and technology sciences. Significant patterns were identified, and opportunities were promoted towards the understanding of this phenomenon.

Background: Several instruments are currently used to assess Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) -induced psychological distress, including the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). The IES-R is a self-administered scale used to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The current study aimed to examine the construct validity of the IES-R, based on the Rasch model, with COVID-19-related data, as well as to test the multilevel construct validity of the IES-R within and among countries during the pandemic crisis. Methods: A multi-country web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted utilizing the 22-item IES-R. A total of 1020 participants enrolled in our survey, of whom 999 were included in the analyses. Data were analyzed using Rasch modeling and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA). Results: The Rasch modeling results of the IES-R demonstrated that the IES-R is a satisfactory instrument with the five-point Likert scale, asserting that its 22 items are significant contributors to assessing PTSD as a unidimensional construct covered by the items of the IES-R. The MCFA confirmed that the 22-item IES-R, with its three factors, including intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal, demonstrates adequate construct validity at the within- and among-country levels. However, the results of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) model determined that the 16-item IES-R is better than the 22-item IES-R. Conclusion: The results suggested that the 22-item IES-R is a reliable screening instrument for measuring PTSD related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and can be utilized to provide timely psychological health support, when needed, based on the screening results.

Background The reliability and validity of the Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale (CHBMS) used in assessing the belief of women regarding breast cancer (BC) and breast cancer screening (BCS) have been examined on various populations. However, the use of this tool has not been adequately assessed for its validity in ethnic minorities. This study assessed the validity and reliability of CHBMS by analyzing the factor structure and internal reliability of the factors among Yemeni women in Malaysia. Methods A survey was conducted among 103 female teachers from 10 schools. SPSS version 22.0 was utilized in analyzing the data. Descriptive statistics were computed for the socio-demographic characteristics. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used in assessing the internal reliability. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to analyze the factor structure of the translated items. Parallel analysis was performed to determine the number of factors accurately. Results The alpha coefficients of the factors had acceptable values ranging between 0.76 and 0.87. The factor analysis yielded six and five factors for breast self-examination (BSE) and mammography (MMG), with a total explained variance of 47.69% and 52.63%, respectively. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index values of 0.64 and 0.72, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (P = 0.0001) for BSE and MMG, respectively, verified the normality distribution and the adequacy of the sample size for EFA. All the items on each factor were from the same construct that were consistent with the number of factors obtained in the scale development study. The items achieved adequate factor loadings that ranged between 0.47 and 0.88. Conclusions The translated version of the CHBMS is a validated scale used in assessing the beliefs related to BC and BCS among Yemeni women living in Malaysia. Healthcare workers could use the scales to assess women’s beliefs on BC and BCS. This instrument could be used to test the effectiveness of the intervention programs.

There have been various systematic reviews on the significance of educational interventions as necessary components to encourage breast cancer screening (BCS) and reduce the burden of breast cancer (BC). However, only a few studies have attempted to examine these educational interventions comprehensively. This review paper aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of various educational interventions in improving BCS uptake, knowledge, and beliefs among women in different parts of the world. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search on four electronic databases, specifically PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, was performed in May 2019. A total of 22 interventional studies were reviewed. Theory- and language-based multiple intervention strategies, which were mainly performed in community and healthcare settings, were the commonly shared characteristics of the educational interventions. Most of these studies on the effectiveness of interventions showed favorable outcomes in terms of the BCS uptake, knowledge, and beliefs among women. Educational interventions potentially increase BCS among women. The interpretation of the reported findings should be treated with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of the characteristics of the participants, research designs, intervention strategies, and outcome measures.