Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36462385›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of nursing studies2023

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A discussion paper.

Della Maneze, Yenna Salamonson, Maxwell Grollman, Jed Montayre, Lucie Ramjan

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of nursing studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Profiling vaccine hesitancy in nursing to tailor public healthcare policies: A cross-sectional international study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Della ManezeUniversity of Wollongong, School of Nursing, Wollongong, NSW, Australia; Western Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Australia; South Western Sydney Local Health District, Multicultural Health Service, Australia; Australian Centre for Integration of Oral Health (ACIOH), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. Electronic address: dmaneze@uow.edu.au.
Yenna SalamonsonUniversity of Wollongong, School of Nursing, Wollongong, NSW, Australia; Western Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Australia; Australian Centre for Integration of Oral Health (ACIOH), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. Electronic address: yenna@uow.edu.au.
Maxwell GrollmanUniversity of California, Los Angeles, Institute for Society and Genetics, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: maxwell.grollman@ucla.edu.
Jed MontayreWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Australia; Australian Centre for Integration of Oral Health (ACIOH), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. Electronic address: j.montayre@westernsydney.edu.au.
Lucie RamjanWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Australia; Australian Centre for Integration of Oral Health (ACIOH), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. Electronic address: l.ramjan@westernsydney.edu.au.
Ingham Institute · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers. AIMS AND

objectivesTo synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.

methodsThis is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English. EXCLUSION: 1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.

resultsThe review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.

conclusionThe review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: To mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesHealth PersonnelHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCare workersCorona virus diseaseEthicsLegalMandatory vaccinePolicySARS-CoV-2Vaccination

Identifiers

PMID36462385
PMCPMC9709452
OpenAlexW4308740188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.