Download This Paper
Preprints with The Lancet is a collaboration between The Lancet Group of journals and SSRN to facilitate the open sharing of preprints for early engagement, community comment, and collaboration. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early-stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision-making or presented without highlighting these facts. For more information, please see the FAQs.
Nocebo-Prone Behavior Contributes to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers
36 Pages Posted: 14 Sep 2021
More...Abstract
Background: (298 w)Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) represents a major challenge in the global fight against COVID19. A skeptical approach to vaccination could be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e. adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. However, the association of nocebo-prone behavior with SARS-COV-2 vaccination hesitancy and tolerability has not been studied.
Methods: A cross-sectional, multicenter, face-to-face survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that was delivered to a representative sample of HCWs of five tertiary hospitals in Athens four months after the SARS-COV2 vaccination rollout for HCWs. The questionnaire was designed to capture the reasons for vaccination hesitancy, vaccination-related AEs, and nocebo prone behavior, by a validated tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals.
Findings: A total of 1,309 HCWs (67·2%women; 43·4% physicians; 28·4% nurses; 11·5% administrative staff; 16·6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires (90·7% participation rate), among whom 237 (18·1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24·8%, mean age±SD=43·2±11·3), suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. Odds of vaccination were 57% lower in participants with Q-No score ≥15, than in those with a score <15 (OR=0.43, 95% CI:0.30-0.60), and 42% lower in females than men (OR=0.58, 95% CI:0.30-0.60), while physicians had higher odds of vaccination (OR=4.73, 95% CI:3·1-7·3) as compared to other HCWs. At least one AE was reported by 67·5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. Females and physicians had a higher probability to report AEs, which was not affected by the Q-No score.
Interpretation: Nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs as captured by the Q-No tool is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy. These findings point to a role of nocebo-related mechanisms in the development of vaccination hesitancy, and a potential benefit of a campaign focused on the nocebo effect with regard to improved vaccination rates.
Funding: None to declare.
Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Ethical Approval: This study was approved by the Ethic Committees of all five Hospitals.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, nocebo, vaccine hesitancy, healthcare workers, tolerability, adverse event
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation