Although there is a lot of scientific evidence that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their risks, hesitancy about the safety of vaccines can occur in every segment of the community. In this study,...

In this study, we investigated the effects of 3 different burn dressing treatments, including experimental, silver, and modern dressing materials, on systemic oxidative stress in rats with severe scald burns within the first 96 h. The rats were divided into five groups: a burn group (n = 10), a polylactic membrane group (n = 10), a silver sulfadiazine group (n = 10), a curcumin group (n = 10), and a control group (n = 10), consisting of equal numbers of female and male rats. In the first 4 groups, 30% of the rats’ total body surface area was scalded at 95°C. The burn group was not treated. Each group was treated with group-name dressing material. The control group was neither treated nor burned. The rats were sacrificed, and blood and tissue samples were obtained at the 96th hour when severe effects of oxidative stress developed postburns. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers and oxidative stress parameters were examined. In addition, apoptosis and organ damage in liver, kidney, lung, and skin tissues were evaluated biochemically and histopathologically. When the parameters were statistically analyzed, we found that the systemic levels of oxidative stress and inflammatory damage to liver, kidney, and lung tissues were lower in the 3 treated groups than in the burn group. We believe that the dressing material’s efficacy in the treatment of severe burns may be dependent on its ability to combat oxidative stress and inflammation.

Among 10 global problems of 2019 determined by the World Health Organization, vaccine refusal was one of the problems mentioned. In this context, health services and health personnel whose main objectives are to keep individuals healthy and to prevent diseases have major responsibilities. This study aims to analyze knowledge and behavior of nurses working at Inonu University Turgut Ozal Medical Center on childhood vaccine refusal. This study, conducted between June and July 2019, is a descriptive cross-sectional study. It was conducted in a hospital located in Malatya in eastern Turkey. At the time of the study, 850 nurses work in this hospital. Sample size was calculated to be 263 at a confidence interval of 95% and strength of 80%. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used in statistical analyses. In the present study, 31.7% of the participating nurses stated that they had concerns about childhood vaccines. Two-thirds of nurses stated that their knowledge on vaccines was from their education. The level of hesitance in those agreeing to the fact that vaccines caused autism and infertility, those stating that they did not trust vaccine-producing companies, and those stating that catching the disease was a better immunization method than vaccination was significantly higher than those not agreeing to these and those who were indecisive (p < .05). One-third of nurses was proven to have hesitance on childhood vaccines, and this rate is rather high. Nurses, being both health personnel and the communication channel for guiding parents, should be provided necessary training and practices in order to ease their hesitance on vaccination.

Although vaccines play a critical role in the control of infectious diseases and disease outbreaks, vaccination rates have been declining in recent years because of vaccine hesitancy or refusal. We aimed to determine the rates and reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of vaccination for their children in Türkiye. A total of 1100 participants selected from 26 regions of Türkiye were involved in this cross-sectional study conducted between July 2020 and April 2021. Using a questionnaire, we collected data on the sociodemographic characteristics of parents, the status of vaccine hesitancy or refusal for their children, and reasons for the hesitancy or refusal. Using Excel and SPSS version 22.0, we analysed the data with chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and binomial logistic regression. Only 9.4% of the participants were male and 29.5% were aged 33-37 years. Just over 11% said they were worried about childhood vaccination, mainly because of the chemicals used in manufacturing the vaccines. The level of concern was greater among those who got information about vaccines from the internet, family members, friends, TV, radio, and newspapers. Those who used complementary health services were considerably more hesitant about vaccination than those who used mainstream services. Parents in Türkiye have several reasons for hesitating or refusing to vaccinate their children, key among which are concerns about the chemical composition of the vaccines and their ability to trigger negative health conditions such as autism. This study used a large sample size across Türkiye, although there were differences by region, the findings would be useful in designing interventions to counter vaccine hesitancy or refusal in the country.

Background: Vaccination is a cost-effective method to protect individuals from diseases and complications that might emerge due to diseases. The healthcare staff in primary healthcare services, as the primary body concerned with vaccines, are notably more likely to encounter families who reject vaccines in childhood. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of the healthcare staff in primary healthcare services regarding vaccine rejection in childhood. Methods: Conducted between July and August 2019, this study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional design. The population of the study comprised 392 healthcare staff working in primary healthcare services in Malatya City Centre. The sample size was calculated as 193, considering a 95% confidence interval and 80% power. The survey form used in the study included questions concerning sociodemographic characteristics of individuals, their views on vaccination and the views of parents regarding vaccine rejection according to the perspectives of the healthcare staff. Chi-square test was used in statistical analyses, and the significance level was set as p < 0.05. Results: In the study group, 25.4% of the healthcare staff stated that they were hesitant about vaccines in childhood. Also, 18.2% of the individuals indicated that they were hesitant about vaccines due to the chemicals in vaccines, 14.4% were hesitant due to the pharmaceutical industry and the relationships based on self-interest and 10.5% were hesitant due to the side effects. The hesitancy level was significantly higher among those whose source of information regarding vaccines in childhood was the internet (37.0%) compared with those whose source was not the internet (21.6%) (p = 0.004). Conclusions: One-fourth of the healthcare staff, who are supposed to be the most informed group about vaccines, were hesitant about them. Moreover, the inaccurate information acquired from the internet and social media could be increasing the hesitancy level. Key messages: Vaccination hesitancy is high among the healthcare staff in primary healthcare services. The source of information regarding vaccination influences the hesitancy levels of individuals.