To assess the amount of vaccine hesitancy and its determinants in relation to various demographic, social, and personal characteristics among the Saudi population. Cross-sectional study. we utilized a structured questionnaire on a five point-Likert scale that included immunization process awareness, perception towards immunization and factors leading to vaccine refusal. The study included 5965 participants characterized according to various demographical factors. The participant's knowledge, perception, and the factors affecting the decision of taking the vaccine were calculated. About 40.7% had enough information about COVID-19 vaccines and were willing to take it. The participant's perception towards COVID-19 vaccines is proportional to their knowledge and varied with the personal characteristics. Factors influencing vaccine use varied also with personal characteristics. Intent to be vaccinated was higher among older age groups, advanced education, retirees, and higher income persons (P < 0.001). Moreover, the influence of heterogeneity in personal perception towards COVID-19 vaccines has been discussed. Vaccine barriers scores were significantly higher among lower educational and income levels (P = 0.004). The leader's influence on vaccine decision was high (p < 0.001). The side effects of COVID-19 vaccine is the most important barrier to vaccine acceptance. Knowledge and perception score were consistently and significantly higher among the group who received their information from official websites, followed by those who had used both websites and social media (p < 0.001). Additional approaches will be needed to effectively meet the needs of the hesitant population, particularly the safety and efficacy concerns, the speed of vaccine development, and the distrust in government and health organizations.

Background: Simulation-based education (SBE) provides a safe, effective, and stimulating environment for training medical and healthcare students. This is especially valuable for skills that cannot be practiced on real patients due to ethical and practical reasons. We aimed to assess medical students’ attitude, perception, and experience of simulation-based medical education in Saudi Arabia. Method: A validated cross-sectional survey, using the KidSIM scale, was conducted to measure the level of perception and experience of students from different health sciences specialties toward integrating simulation as an educational tool. Participants responded to questions investigated the importance of simulation, opportunities for Inter-Professional Education (IPE), communication, roles and responsibilities, and situation awareness. Only students with previous experience of SBE were considered for participation. Result: This survey was completed by 246 participants, of whom 165 (67%) were male students and 228 (93%) were aged between the range of 18–30 years old. Of the respondents, 104 (67%) were respiratory care students, 90 (37%) were anesthesia technology students, and 45 (18%) were nursing students. Most of the participants had previous experience in IPE simulation activities (84%), and more than half of the students (54%) had a grade point average (GPA) ranging between 5.00 and 4.50. Overall, students had positive attitudes toward and beliefs about SBE, with a mean score of 129.76 ± 14.27, on the KidSIM scale, out of 150. Students’ GPA was significantly associated with a better perception to the relevance of simulation (p = 0.005), communication (p = 0.003), roles and responsibilities (p = 0.04), and situation awareness (p = 0.009). GPA is merely the sole predictor for positive attitude toward simulation with coefficient Beta value of 4.285 (p = 0.001). There were no significant correlations between other students’ characteristic variables (gender, specialty, study year, experience in IPE, and prior critical care experience). Conclusion: We found that health sciences students’ perception of SBE in Saudi Arabia is generally positive, and students’ performance is a significant determinant of the positive perception.

Night shift duties are crucial in the ICU to ensure care continuity, where critically ill patients require round-the-clock care. However, cumulative night shift duties may disturb circadian rhythm, insomnia, fatigue, and depression, and require further elucidation. This study aims to examine the negative consequences of various night shift patterns on insomnia, fatigue, and mental health of ICU Workers. A cross-sectional study examined how cumulative night shift duty affects insomnia, fatigue, and mental health in critical care providers (CCPs). A total of 1006 participants completed this study between June 2022 and March 2023, including 54.5 % males. About 35 % were between 20 and 30 years of age, and Respiratory Therapists accounted for approximately 46.5 % of the entire sample. Most of our respondents (476; 47 %) reported working night shifts, with a monthly range of 8–15 nights. The prevalence rates for moderate to severe clinical insomnia, fatigue, and moderate to severe depression were 42 %, 48 %, and 32 %, respectively. CCPs working 8–15 nights had a 2-fold risk of clinical insomnia than those working fewer than eight nights with (AOR) and 95 % (CI) of 2.12 and 1.41–3.20, while those working ≥16 nights per month had a greater incidence of clinical insomnia compared to those working <8 nights per month, AOR (CI): 3.09 (1.90–5.03). Only those working ≥16-night shifts per month had a substantially higher fatigue risk compared to those working < 8-night shifts per month, with an AOR (CI) of 1.92 (1.19–3.08). Working 8–15-night shifts per month increases depression risks by 34 % compared to the <8-night shifts group, AOR (CI): 1.34 (0.87–2.08). Those working ≥16-night shifts per month showed a higher depression risk than those working <8-night shifts, AOR (CI): 2.53 (1.53–4.19). A cumulative night shift above eight nights per month is linked with an increased risk of insomnia, fatigue, and depression. The risk of these conditions was significantly directly proportional to the number of night shifts performed per month.

Background: Cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (CR) serves as a core component of the management strategy for patients with heart failure (HF). CR is administered by multidisciplinary healthcare providers, but their perceptions toward delivering CR to HF patients, and the factors and barriers that might influence referral, have not been studied. This study aims to assess physicians’ perceptions toward delivering CR programs to HF patients and identify factors and barriers that might influence their referral decisions. Methods: Between 15 February and 5 June 2022, a cross-sectional online survey with ten multiple-choice items was distributed to all general and cardiac physicians in Saudi Arabia. The characteristics of the respondents were described using descriptive statistics. Percentages and frequencies were used to report categorical variables. The statistical significance of the difference between categorical variables was determined using the chi-square (2) test. Logistic regression was used to identify referral factors. Results: Overall, 513 physicians (general physicians (78%) and cardiac doctors (22%)) completed the online survey, of which 65.0% (n = 332) were male. Of the general physicians, 236 (59%) had referred patients with HF to CR. Sixty-six (58%) of the cardiac doctors had referred patients with HF to CR. A hospital-supervised program was the preferred mode of delivering CR programs among 315 (79%) general physicians, while 84 (74%) cardiac doctors preferred to deliver CR programs at home. Apart from the exercise component, information about HF disease was perceived by 321 (80%) general physicians as the essential component of a CR program, while symptom management was perceived by 108 (95%) cardiac doctors as the essential component of a CR program. The most common patient-related factor that strongly influenced referral decisions was “fatigue related to disease” (63.40%). The availability of CR centers (48%) was the most common barrier preventing the referral of patients to CR. Conclusions: CR is an effective management strategy for HF patients, but the lack of CR centers is a major barrier to the referral of patients. A hospital-supervised program is the preferred method of delivering CR from the general physicians’ perspective, while cardiac doctors prefer home-based CR programs. Apart from the exercise component, information about HF disease and symptom management is essential components of CR programs from general physicians’ and cardiac doctors’ perspectives, respectively.

Background: Several vaccines have been recommended by the health authorities in recent years and have been opposed by debates, lack of public trust, and variable levels of hesitance that resulted in increased anti-vaccination advocacy and a subsequent reduction in vaccination rates worldwide. Purpose: This study aimed to explore the community’s perceptions of the role of healthcare leadership in promoting vaccine acceptance. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a validated questionnaire designed according to the study’s objectives for a heterogeneous purposive sample of individuals over 18 years old in Saudi Arabia. Participants completed the questionnaire online via a link provided by multiple social media platforms. Results: The study included 7159 participants with various demographical features. On a five-point Likert scale, the average level of agreement on the role of healthcare executives in promoting vaccines was 3.76. The average level of agreement about the role of healthcare leaders in promoting vaccines was 3.76 out of five. Men were more likely than women to agree on healthcare worker’s influence, 63.6% and 58.6%, respectively (P < 0.001). The ages of participants showed a favorable correlation with their level of agreement on the role of healthcare leaders in promoting vaccines (P < 0.001). The level of agreement on healthcare leader’s role in promoting vaccines was inversely proportional to the education level (P < 0.001). The retired group reported the highest score, followed by the employed ones (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Unlike other political and religious leaders, this study indicates that healthcare professionals significantly impact vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Despite rising vaccine hesitancy, healthcare leaders remain more trustworthy providers of guidance and influence over vaccination decisions than others. In addition, the health leader’s factual message boosts people’s self-esteem and helps them decide to be vaccinated.