Search

Purpose: The current pandemic made scientists create new platforms of vaccines to fight against SARS-CoV-2. Without a doubt, the new forms of present vaccines could develop a diversity of unknown complications. Sputnik V vaccine with two different adenovirus vectors (Ad26 priming and Ad5 boost) was first announced safe and effective by Russia. However, there are controversies surrounding this vaccine such as the possible decline of its immunogenicity and diminished neutralizing capacity against some Covid-19 variants. In addition, its impression on serum biomarkers is not clearly surveyed. The present study aimed to evaluate the frequency of Sputnik V vaccine-related complications and its impression on inflammatory and hematologic biomarkers., Materials &methods: An observational cohort study was performed to evaluate the side effects and serum biomarkers changes in healthcare workers receiving Sputnik V vaccine. The vaccine adverse events were recorded daily within 60 days. The blood samples were obtained before vaccination, and on the10th day after each dose of vaccination. The prevalence of all complications and inflammatory biomarkers levels were compared between two doses. All analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0., Results: Totally, 126 participants completed the study. The mean age was 37.19 ​± ​7.73 years. The prevalence of all complications was higher following the first dose than the second dose. The most common side effects were pain at the injection site, body pain, fever, headache, weakness, vertigo, sore throat and sleep disorder. The hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume of red blood cells and neutrophils count declined following vaccination significantly (P-value; 0.04, 0.039, 0.000 respectively)., Conclusion: It seems the side effects of Sputnik-V vaccine are mild and decrease significantly after the second dose. The decreasing level of hematocrit, MCV and neutrophil count was found significant following vaccination., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript, and report no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to determine how well graduates of a rehabilitation counselling master programme were prepared to work with clients in assistive technology (AT) device selection or referral of resources. Specifically, inquiry was conducted as to how graduates have incorporated AT into their professional practice, their level of comfort with exploring AT solutions, and whether they felt additional training was needed. METHODS. The methodology used was an online survey of multiple choice and text boxes sent to rehabilitation counselling graduates. Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were used to provide the range of responses. Trends were analysed to highlight differences between various factors. RESULTS. Responses indicated that graduates did find the dedicated AT course helpful in learning about the AT process. However, a number of respondents were not comfortable in participating in the AT process and were not incorporating the AT process into their work. CONCLUSIONS. Future studies should explore the role of AT acquisition from the perspective of rehabilitation counsellors and also examine why graduates are not incorporating the AT process. Respondents indicated the need for continuing education and professional development in this area.