Background: Health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID-19 infection. Moreover, they present role models for communities with regards to attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Hence, hesitancy of HCWs towards vaccination can crucially affect the efforts aiming to contain the pandemic. Previously published studies paid little attention to HCWs in Arab countries, which have a population of over 440 million. Objectives: To assess the rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Arabic-speaking HCWs residing in and outside Arab countries, and their perceived barriers towards vaccination. Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted from 14–29 January 2021, targeting Arabic-speaking HCWs from all around the world. Results: The survey recruited 5708 eligible participants (55.6% males, 44.4% females, age 30.6 ± 10 years) from 21 Arab countries (87.5%) and 54 other countries (12.5%). Our analysis showed a significant rate of vaccine hesitancy among Arabic-speaking HCWs residing in and outside of Arab countries (25.8% and 32.8%, respectively). The highest rates of hesitancy were among participants from the western regions of the Arab world (Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria). The most cited reasons for hesitancy were concerns about side effects and distrust of the expedited vaccine production and healthcare policies. Factors associated with higher hesitancy included age of 30–59, previous or current suspected or confirmed COVID-19, female gender, not knowing the vaccine type authorized in the participant’s country, and not regularly receiving the influenza vaccine. Conclusion: This is the first large-scale multinational post-vaccine-availability study on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. It reveals high rates of hesitancy among Arab-speaking HCWs. Unless addressed properly, this hesitancy can impede the efforts for achieving widespread vaccination and collective immunity.

Rational: During pandemics, including the most recent COVID-19 pandemic, the mental health of university healthcare students’ is expected to be affected negatively, impacting the students’ learning process. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the level of anxiety and depression of healthcare students living in Jordan, and the effect on their learning process during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey completed by students studying a healthcare-oriented degree in a university in Jordan. Participants were recruited through social media (Facebook and WhatsApp). The validated previously published Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire was used as a part of the online survey to assess students’ anxiety/depression scores. Students’ responses regarding their learning process during the COVID-19 was also assessed. Results: The mean age of participants was 21.62 (SD = 4.90), with the majority being females (67.1%). The HADs’ assessment revealed that 43.8% and 40.0% of participants had normal anxiety and depression scores, while 22.4% showed borderline abnormal anxiety/depression scores (33.8%). Many students (33.8%) were classified to have abnormal anxiety scores, while a smaller proportion (26.2%) was classified to have abnormal depression scores. Smoking (p = 0.022), lower family income (p = 0.039), and use of medications (p = 0.032) were positively associated with higher (worse) anxiety scores. Ranking the learning process during COVID-19 showed that 45.8% of the participants believed it was a ‘good/very good/excellent’ process. Conclusions: Anxiety and depression levels amongst university healthcare students in Jordan were found to be high when assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the learning process during the pandemic was not accepted by more than half of the students. Implementing psychological interventions for healthcare students during pandemics is strongly recommended in order to optimize students’ mental health and their learning process alike.

Turbuhaler and Diskus are commonly used powder inhaler devices for patients with respiratory disease. Their effectiveness is limited in part by a patient's ability to use them correctly. This has led to numerous studies being conducted over the last decade to assess the correct use of these devices by patients and health care professionals. These studies have generally used device-specific checklists to assess technique, this being the most feasible and accessible method for assessment. However, divergence between the checklists and scoring systems for the same device in different studies makes direct comparison of results difficult and at times inappropriate. Little evidence is available to assess the relative importance of different criteria; however, brief patient training based on specific inhaler technique checklists leads to significant improvement in asthma outcomes. This paper reviews common checklists and scoring systems used for Turbuhaler and Diskus, discusses the problem of heterogeneity between different checklists, and finally recommends suitable checklists and scoring systems for these devices based on the literature and previous findings. Only when similar checklists are used across different research studies will accurate comparisons and meta-analysis be possible.

Associations between patient factors and medication adherence: A Jordanian experience