Search

To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, vaccines have been urgently approved. With their limited availability, it is critical to distribute the vaccines reasonably. We simulated the SARS-CoV-2 transmission for 365 days over four intervention periods: free transmission, structural mitigation, personal mitigation, and vaccination. Sensitivity analyses were performed to obtain robust results. We further evaluated two proposed vaccination allocations, including one-dose-high-coverage and two-doses-low-coverage, when the supply was low. 33.35% (infection rate, 2.68 in 10 million people) and 40.54% (2.36) of confirmed cases could be avoided as the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) adherence rate rose from 50% to 70%. As the vaccination coverage reached 60% and 80%, the total infections could be reduced by 32.72% and 41.19%, compared to the number without vaccination. When the durations of immunity were 90 and 120 days, the infection rates were 2.67 and 2.38. As the asymptomatic infection rate rose from 30% to 50%, the infection rate increased 0.92 (SD, 0.16) times. Conditioned on 70% adherence rate, with the same amount of limited available vaccines, the 20% and 40% vaccination coverage of one-dose-high-coverage, the infection rates were 2.70 and 2.35; corresponding to the two-doses-low-coverage with 10% and 20% vaccination coverage, the infection rates were 3.22 and 2.92. Our results indicated as the duration of immunity prolonged, the second wave of SARS-CoV-2 would be delayed and the scale would be declined. On average, the total infections in two-doses-low-coverage was 1.48 times (SD, 0.24) as high as that in one-dose-high-coverage. It is crucial to encourage people in order to improve vaccination coverage and establish immune barriers. Particularly when the supply is limited, a wiser strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 is equally distributing doses to the same number of individuals. Besides vaccination, NPIs are equally critical to the prevention of widespread of SARS-C

PURPOSES: Clinical trial education has not been extensively integrated into nursing education systems. Acute care nurses may lack sufficient knowledge when caring for admitted trial patients, which may negatively influence their attitudes toward clinical trials. The aim of this study was to explore ward-based nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward clinical trials. DESIGN AND METHODS: Ward-based nurses working in medical, surgical, and intensive care units in a medical center in Taiwan were approached to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed by the research team and included four parts: demographics, experience with clinical trials, clinical trial knowledge, and attitudes toward clinical trials. FINDINGS: A total of 161 nurses responded. Nearly 90% of the nurses accessed trial information in their workplace. Nearly 80% of the respondents had experience with caring for trial patients, but the mean score of clinical trial knowledge was 4.5 out of a possible score of 10. For attitudes toward clinical trials, the mean score for positive beliefs was 39.7, and the mean score for negative expectations was 42.5, both out of a possible score of 55. The results indicated that respondents typically tended to hold a negative attitude toward clinical trials, especially in regard to the side effects of study drugs and communication with investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge deficits of ward-based nurses concerning trial participation is apparent. Continuing education for ward-based nurses is necessary to promote implementation of clinical trials and reduce negative expectations related to clinical trials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One way to improve nurses' knowledge is to integrate clinical trial education into nursing education systems, which will provide more channels through which nurses can understand how a trial works, including the risks, benefits, and participant protection. Through such educational initiatives, ward-based nurses may develop more positive bel