Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Cross-Country Discrepancies in Monkeypox Vaccine Hesitancy Among Postgraduate and Undergraduate Medical Students
    Hussein M, Siddiq A, Ismail HM, Mansy N, Ellakwa DE, Nassif M, et al.
    Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 2024 May 02;18:e82.
    PMID: 38695200 DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2024.50
    BACKGROUND: Medical students hold significant importance, as they represent the future of healthcare provision. This study aimed to explore psychological antecedents towards the monkeypox (mpox) vaccines among postgraduate and undergraduate medical students across countries.

    METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical students aged 18 years old and above in 7 countries; Egypt, Romania, Malaysia, and Yemen, Iraq, India, and Nigeria. We used social media platforms between September 27 and November 4, 2022. An anonymous online survey using the 5C scale was conducted using snowball and convenience Sampling methods to assess the 5 psychological antecedents of vaccination (i.e., confidence, constraints, complacency, and calculation, as well as collective responsibility).

    RESULTS: A total of 2780 participants were recruited. Participants' median age was 22 years and 52.1% of them were males. The 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination were as follows: 55% were confident about vaccination, 10% were complacent, 12% experienced constraints, and 41% calculated the risk and benefit. Lastly, 32% were willing to be vaccinated for the prevention of infection transmission to others. The Country was a significant predictor of confidence, complacency, having constraints, and calculation domains (P < 0.001). Having any idea about the mpox vaccine was linked to 1.6 times higher odds of being more confident [OR = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.26-1.98), P < 0.001] Additionally, living in a rural area significantly increased complacency [OR = 1.42 (95% CI, 1.05-1.95), P = 0.024] as well as having anyone die from mpox [OR = 3.3 (95% CI, 1.64-6.68), P < 0.001]. Education level was associated with increased calculation [OR = 2.74 (95% CI, 1.62-4.64), P < 0.001]. Moreover, being single and having no chronic diseases significantly increased the calculation domain [OR = 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06-1.98), P = 0.02] and [OR = 1.54 (95% CI, 1.10-2.16), P = 0.012] respectively. Predictors of collective responsibility were age 31-45 years [OR = 2.89 (95% CI, 1.29-6.48), P = 0.01], being single [OR = 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94 -3.92), P < 0.001], being a graduate [OR = 1.59 (95% CI (1.32-1.92), P < 0.001], having no chronic disease [OR = 2.14 (95% CI, 1.56-2.93), P < 0.001], and not knowing anyone who died from mpox [OR = 2.54 (95% CI, 1.39-4.64), P < 0.001), as well as living in a middle-income country [OR = 0.623, (95% CI, 0.51-0.73), P < 0.001].

    CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the multifaceted nature of psychological antecedents of vaccination, emphasizing the impact of socio-demographic factors, geographic location, and awareness, as well as previous experiences on individual attitudes and collective responsibility towards vaccination.

  2. Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1
    Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links