Aiman Suleiman

Dr. Aiman Suleiman

Master of science in Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Jordan
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
Isam BsisuIsam Bsisu
Isam Bsisu
HGHasan Guzu
Hasan Guzu
ASAbeer Santarisi
Abeer Santarisi
MAMurad Alsatari
Murad Alsatari
MAMahmoud Almustafa
Mahmoud Almustafa
The number of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019) cases in Jordan is rising rapidly. A serious threat to the healthcare system appears on the horizon. Our study aims to evaluate preparedness of Jordanian frontline doctors to the worsening scenario. It has a questionnaire-based cross-sectional structure. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate preparedness according to knowledge about virus transmission and protective measures, adherence to protection guidelines, and psychological impacts affecting doctors. Institutional factors affecting doctors’ readiness like adopting approach protocols and making protection equipment available were investigated; 308 doctors from different healthcare facilities participated (response rate: 53.9%). Approximately 25% of doctors (n = 77) previously took care of COVID-19 patients, and 173 (56.2%) have institutional COVID-19 approach protocols. Only 57 doctors (18.5%) reported all PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) available. The self-reported score of preparedness to deal with COVID-19 patients was 4.9 ± 2.4. Doctors having institutional protocols for dealing with COVID-19 cases and those with sustained availability of PPE reported higher scores of preparedness (5.5 ± 2.3 and 6.2 ± 2.1 with p < 0.001, respectively). Correlations with knowledge score, adherence to PPE score, and psychological impacts were investigated. The study revealed multiple challenges and insufficiencies that can affect frontline doctors’ preparedness. Policy makers are urged to take these findings into consideration and to act promptly.

21 October 2021 in Vaccines
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RARami Alqassieh
Rami Alqassieh
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
SASami Abu-Halaweh
Sami Abu-Halaweh
ASAbeer Santarisi
Abeer Santarisi
OSOmar Fawzi Shatnawi
Omar Fawzi Shatnawi
Isam BsisuIsam Bsisu
Isam Bsisu
COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25–196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11–0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

AAAbdelkarim Aloweidi
Abdelkarim Aloweidi
Isam BsisuIsam Bsisu
Isam Bsisu
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
SASami Abu-Halaweh
Sami Abu-Halaweh
MAMahmoud Almustafa
Mahmoud Almustafa
HOHala Mahmoud Obeidat
Hala Mahmoud Obeidat
Vaccination is the most promising strategy to counter the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine hesitancy is a serious global phenomenon, and therefore the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the effect of educational background, work field, and social media on attitudes towards vaccination in Jordan. We compared between medical personnel who were in direct contact with patients and non-medical individuals at Jordan University Hospital in terms of demographics, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, rumors received via social media, their trust in these vaccines, and the encouraging factors for vaccination. 646 individuals were enrolled in this study, of which 287 (44.4%) were from medical field, and 359 (55.6%) from non-medical field. 226 (35%) were planning to take the vaccine once available, with a positive response from 131 (45.6%) medical field workers, compared to 94 (26.2%) non-medical individuals (p < 0.001). The social media rumor that was believed the most was the unsafety of these vaccines (n = 283; 43.8%). Only 163 (56.8%) of medical persons did not believe any of the circulated rumors, compared to 126 (35.1%) of non-medical persons (p < 0.001). The effect of medical personnel advice (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.026) and social media (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.41; p = 0.012) were significantly associated with the willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine once available. In conclusion, medical personnel and social media play a crucial role in increasing the society’s inclination towards vaccination by providing the community with updated evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines as an efficient medical countermeasure and by correcting the previously spread misinformation.

25 January 2021 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RARuba Alhamad
Ruba Alhamad
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
Isam BsisuIsam Bsisu
Isam Bsisu
ASAbeer Santarisi
Abeer Santarisi
AOAhmad Al Owaidat
Ahmad Al Owaidat
MMMohamad Mahseeri
Mohamad Mahseeri
Background: High numbers of violence incidents against physicians are reported annually in both developing and developed countries. In Jordan, studies conducted on healthcare workers involved small number of physicians and showed higher percentages of violence exposure when compared to other investigations from the Middle East. This is a large study aiming to comprehensively analyze the phenomenon in the physicians’ community to optimize future strategies countering it.Methods: The study has a cross sectional, questionnaire-based design. It targeted 969 doctors from different types of healthcare Jordanian institutions in Amman, between May to July, 2019. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate properties of reported abuse cases in terms of abusers, timing, and type of abuse, in addition to the consequences of this abuse.Results: Prevalence of exposure to violence in the last year among doctors was 63.1% (611 doctors). 423 (67.2%) of male doctors had an experience of being abused during the last 12 months, compared to 188 (55.3%) of females (p< 0.001). Governmental centers showed the highest prevalence. Among 356 doctors working in governmental medical centers, 268 (75.3%) reported being abused (p< 0.001), and they were more abused verbally (63.5%) and physically (10.4%) compared to other medical sectors (p <0.001). The mean score of how worried doctors are regarding violence at their workplace from 1 to 5 was 3.1 ± 1.3, and only 129 (13.3%) believed that they are protected by law.Conclusions: The study emphasized on the higher rate of violence against physicians in the governmental sector, in addition to the negative effect of abuse on their performance. Moreover, male physicians had higher incidence of workplace abuse. Therefore, strategies that ease and promote the real application of anti-violence policies should become our future target.

28 June 2024 in Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
DWDario von Wedel
Dario von Wedel
RMRicardo Munoz-Acuna
Ricardo Munoz-Acuna
SRSimone Redaelli
Simone Redaelli
ASAbeer Santarisi
Abeer Santarisi
MSMaximilian S. Schaefer
Maximilian S. Schaefer

26 August 2021 in Vaccines
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SASami Abu-Halaweh
Sami Abu-Halaweh
RARami Alqassieh
Rami Alqassieh
ASAiman Suleiman
Aiman Suleiman
MAMohammed Al-sabbagh
Mohammed Al-sabbagh
MAMaram AbuHalaweh
Maram AbuHalaweh
Isam BsisuIsam Bsisu
Isam Bsisu
Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.