Background: COVID-19 vaccine side effects have a fundamental role in public confidence in the vaccine and its uptake process. Thus far, the evidence on vaccine safety has exclusively been obtained from the manufacturer-sponsored studies; therefore, this study was designed to provide independent evidence on Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between January and February 2021 to collect data on the side effects following the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in the Czech Republic. The study used a validated questionnaire with twenty-eight multiple-choice items covering the participants’ demographic data, medical anamneses, COVID-19-related anamneses, general, oral, and skin-related side effects. Results: Injection site pain (89.8%), fatigue (62.2%), headache (45.6%), muscle pain (37.1%), and chills (33.9%) were the most commonly reported side effects. All the general side effects were more prevalent among the ≤43-year-old group, and their duration was mainly one day (45.1%) or three days (35.8%) following the vaccine. Antihistamines were the most common drugs associated with side effects, thus requiring further investigation. The people with two doses were generally associated with a higher frequency of side effects. Conclusions: The distribution of side effects among Czech healthcare workers was highly consistent with the manufacturer’s data, especially in terms of their association with the younger age group and the second dose. The overall prevalence of some local and systemic side effects was higher than the manufacturer’s report. Further independent studies on vaccine safety are strongly required to strengthen public confidence in the vaccine.

Evidence-based healthcare focuses on the need to use interventions that are supported by the best available and most up-to-date evidence or knowledge. Many clinical questions cannot be fully answered by evidence derived from quantitative or qualitative research designs alone, since many areas in healthcare are supported by clinicians' tacit knowledge derived from their clinical experiences. In this situation, evidence generated from a systematic review of text and opinion may be required as the best available evidence. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance and role of expert opinion synthesis in healthcare, and present results of an international methodological group review. A methodological group was formed to review this approach, and update the guidance and processes for undertaking a systematic review of text and opinion. The methodology of systematic reviews of text and opinion had already been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We reviewed and updated several steps in the process, such as inclusion criteria, search strategy, critical appraisal and data extraction. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for the systematic review of text and opinion is unique, and continuously evolving and being further developed. Systematic reviews of text and opinion may be considered as legitimate sources of evidence, especially when there is an absence of other research designs.

Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to mass vaccination strategies that need to be accelerated currently in order to achieve a substantial level of community immunity. Independent (non-sponsored) studies have a great potential to enhance public confidence in vaccines and accelerate their uptake process. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional study for the side effects (SE) of CoronaVac was carried out in February 2021 among Turkish healthcare workers who were recently vaccinated. The questionnaire inquired about local and systemic SEs that occurred in the short-term, within four weeks, following vaccination. Results: A total of 780 healthcare workers were included in this study; 62.5% of them experienced at least one SE. Injection site pain (41.5%) was the most common local SE, while fatigue (23.6%), headache (18.7%), muscle pain (11.2%) and joint pain (5.9%) were the common systemic SEs. Female healthcare workers (67.9%) were significantly more affected by local and systemic SEs than male colleagues (51.4%). Younger age, previous infection, and compromised health status (chronic illnesses and regular medicines uptake) can be associated with an increased risk of CoronaVac SEs; Conclusions: The independent research shows a higher prevalence of CoronaVac SEs than what is reported by phase I–III clinical trials. In general, the results of this study confirm the overall safety of CoronaVac and suggest potential risk factors for its SEs. Gender-based differences and SEs distribution among age groups are worth further investigation.

Pregnant and lactating women (PLW) represent a particular population subset with increased susceptibility for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, even though the evidence about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines was delayed due to their initial exclusion from development trials. This unclear situation could have led to increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy levels among PLW; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of Czech PLW towards COVID-19 vaccines and the determinants of their attitudes. An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out in the University Hospital Brno (South Moravia, Czechia) between August and October 2021. The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) adapted from previous instruments used for the same purpose. The SAQ included closed-ended items covering demographic characteristics, clinical and obstetric characteristics, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, and potential psychosocial predictors of vaccine acceptance. Out of the 362 included participants, 278 were pregnant (PW) and 84 were lactating women (LW). The overall COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (immediate and delayed) level was substantially high (70.2%), with a significant difference between PW (76.6%) and LW (48.8%). Out of the 70.2% who agreed to receive the vaccine, 3.6% indicated immediate acceptance, and 66.6% indicated delayed acceptance. Only 13.3% of the participants indicated their acceptance of their physician’s vaccination recommendation during pregnancy or while lactating, and 62.2% were against it. Our results agreed with the recent studies that revealed that PW tended to have a high level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and they were also inclined to resist professional recommendations because they predominantly preferred to delay their vaccination. The pregnancy trimester, education level, employment status, and previous live births were significant determinants for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The most commonly preferred vaccine type was mRNA-based vaccines, followed by viral vector-based and inactivated virus vaccines. The first top priority of PLW was vaccine safety for their children, followed by vaccine safety for the PLW and vaccine effectiveness. Regarding psychosocial predictors, media/social media, trust in the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare professionals, partners, and a positive risk-benefit ratio were significant promoters for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Findings from this study suggest that promotional interventions targeting PLW should use web platforms and focus on vaccine safety evidence, the expected benefits of vaccines and potential harms of the infection.

Background: The critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) are susceptible to a wide array of complications that can be life-threatening or impose them to long-term complications. The COVID-19 oral mucocutaneous complications require multidisciplinary management and research for their pathophysiological course and epidemiological significance; therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients with oral complications. Methods: We described the clinical and microbiological characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients in our ICU department (Banska Bystrica, Slovakia). In addition, we reviewed the current body of evidence in Ovid MEDLINE^®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for the oral mucocutaneous complications of ICU patients with COVID-19. Results: Three out of nine critically ill patients (33.3%) in our ICU department presented with oral complications including haemorrhagic ulcers and necrotic ulcers affecting the lips and tongue. The microbiological assessment revealed the presence of opportunistic pathogens, confirming the possibility of co-infection. On reviewing the current literature, two hundred ten critically ill patients were reported to have oral complications due to their stay in the ICU setting. Perioral pressure ulcers were the most common complication, followed by oral candidiasis, herpetic and haemorrhagic ulcers, and acute onset macroglossia. The prolonged prone positioning and mechanical ventilation devices were the primary risk factors for those oral complications, in addition to the immunosuppressive drugs. Conclusions: The multidisciplinary approach is strongly advocated for monitoring and management of COVID-19 patients, thus implying that dermatology and oral healthcare specialists and nurses should be integrated within the ICU teams.

Background: The recent human monkeypox virus (HMPXV) outbreak in non-endemic countries that started in May 2022 has raised concerns among public health authorities worldwide. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a decisive role during epidemics in transmitting accurate information to the public and motivating them to pursue protective behaviours, including immunisation. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in the Czech Republic in September 2022 to evaluate HMPXV-related knowledge and vaccination perceptions among HCWs. The study utilised a digital self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) to collect data from the target population. The proposed SAQ inquired about participants’ sociodemographic and anamnestic characteristics, perceived knowledge of HMPXV, factual knowledge, and vaccination perceptions according to the health belief model (HBM). Results: A total of 341 participants were included in this study; most of them were females (88.9%), allied HCWs (89.4%), heterosexuals (87.1%), married (61.9%), and vaccinated against COVID-19 (91.2%). Only 8.8% of the participants agreed to receive vaccination against HMPXV; 44.9% rejected it, while 46.3% were hesitant. While digital news portals (47.5%) and social media (25.8%) were among the most utilised sources of information about HMPXV, the scientific journals (5.6%), ECDC (5%), and the U.S. CDC (1.5%) were the least common sources. The participants demonstrated suboptimal levels of factual knowledge, especially regarding HMPXV vaccines (1.5 ± 1.2 (0–4)) and treatments (0.9 ± 0.9 (0–4)). Additionally, several misconceptions were detectable among the participants, regarding topics such as the availability of effective vaccines and antivirals against HMPXV, the risk of vertical transmission, and homosexual stigmatisation. The HBM indicated that the cues to action and perceived susceptibility were the most important constructs to predict HMPXV vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: the findings of this study call upon public health practitioners and health policymakers in the Czech Republic to act accordingly in order to determine the drivers of vaccine hesitancy among Czech HCWs. Dedicated educational campaigns should aim to counter the HCWs’ misconceptions around HMPXV, and future studies should aim to explore the prevalence and drivers of HMPXV vaccine hesitancy among the general population.