AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Ammu Thampi Susheela, Loyola-MacNeal Hospital, 3249 S Oak Park Ave, Berwyn, IL 60402.
Citation: Dheeraj Mahajan, Lori Porter and Ammu Thampi Susheela (2022) Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Nursing Home Staff and the Need for Ongoing Education and Vaccine Access. Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. 4(1); DOI: 10.31579/2690-8794/103
Copyright: © 2022, Ammu Thampi Susheela, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 06 September 2021 | Accepted: 16 September 2021 | Published: 04 January 2022
Keywords: covid-19; vaccine hesitancy
Objective: To study vaccine hesitancy among health care workers who provide direct care in nursing homes and long term care facilities which cater to the most vulnerable population of the community.
Design: This is a cross sectional cohort study
Setting and participants: The study was conducted on the front line healthcare workers who work in long term care facilities.
Methods: A nationwide survey was conducted on the certified nurse assistants on November 16th 2020 which reached 7000 survey recipients.
Results: Out of 7000 survey recipients, 3119 responded (45% response rate). There was 71.6% (2,233) negative response about taking the covid19 vaccine due to lack of trust and education of information
Conclusions and implications: Our study concluded that the vaccine hesitancy is high among the health care workers of long-term care facility and that ongoing education and interactive dialogue with certified nurse assistants and ongoing access to vaccine is critical as the willingness improves.
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an extensive toll on humanity physically, mentally, and financially. Residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities (LCTFs) and settings have been severely and disproportionately affected due to advanced age and the presence of multiple and complex underlying chronic conditions, as well as the setting of congregate living in many cases, and the employment of certified nurse assistants who work in multiple facilities with multiple resident groups.
Data from the federal government and the states on novel coronavirus infections and COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes specifically, combined with comprehensive data compiled in non-governmental databases, have documented the virus’ toll in this high-risk segment of the long-term care population. As of February 26, 2021, at least 172,000 coronavirus deaths among the residents and staff of nursing homes and other LTCFs were reported by the New York Times database [1]. And according to a nursing home dashboard maintained by the AARP Public Policy Institute and the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University in Ohio, there were 9.2 COVID-19 cases--and 1.95 COVID-19 deaths--per 100 nursing home residents in the four weeks ending on January 17, 2021 [2]. In addition to illness and death, the physical separation from other residents, family, and other loved ones has taken an emotional and physical toll on nursing home residents [3].
The development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 offers hope for nursing home residents, and a potential path back toward social interaction and an end to COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. Health care workers and residents of nursing homes and other LTCFs were designated in December 2020 for the initial COVID-10 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on allocation of COVID-19 vaccination [4]. An allocation framework developed earlier by the National Academy of Medicine similarly gave nursing homes and LTCFs top priority, assigning health care workers in these care settings to its Phase 1a category, and residents of nursing homes and LTCFs to Phase 1b [5].
The impact of immunization is contingent upon vaccine acceptance and uptake. The herd immunity is referred as indirect protection from infection conferred to the susceptible individuals when a sufficiently large number of immune individuals exists in the population. The herd immunity threshold is the point at which the susceptible individuals in a population falls below the threshold needed for transmission [6]. An estimated vaccine coverage of 55% to 82% of the population is required to attain the herd immunity needed to protect the vulnerable adult population [7]. Kwok et al published about the critical level of population immunity (Pcrit) required to halt the spread of infection in a population using the formula Pcrit = 1-1/Rt (where Rt is the effective reproductive number of an ongoing epidemic). Rt is calculated by using the exponential growth rate for daily number of new COVID19 cases and a recent estimate of the serial interval with a mean of 4.7 days +-2.9 days at a 0.05 significance level using a statistical software. Based on these calculations, the Pcrit for United States based was 69.6 [8]. Herd immunity of the population as a result of vaccination or natural selection depends on variations in the homogenous mixing of the individuals and the individuals developing sterilizing immunity [6]. Aschwanden et al reports the maladies of attaining herd immunity by natural selection as it causes catastrophic loss of human lives while the society may not return to normal as observed in Manaus, Brazil and Italy [9]. Hence, herd immunity through vaccination is considered as the most desirable solution to the COVID19 pandemic. For SARS Co-V-2, clinical manifestations are a poor indicator of transmissibility as asymptomatic carriers can be highly infectious. Once the herd immunity threshold is reached, efficacy of the herd immunity depends on strength and duration of the immunity acquired. If immunity is unevenly distributed, clusters of susceptible hosts can create local outbreak. Case fatality rates and overall infection fatality rates are the relevant measures of SARS Co-V-2 [6].
The factors deciding vaccine hesitancy is subjective and largely depends on the individuals' decision-making process. The individual’s decision-making regarding vaccination is complex and is based on social, emotional, cultural or spiritual, political, and cognitive factors. Vaccine hesitancy has been defined by the World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization as “the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccine services.” It is influenced by factors such as complacency (perceiving that taking the vaccine is not important), convenience, and confidence about safety and efficacy. Contextual influences, individual and group influences, and vaccine-specific issues each play a role [7].
Among health care workers, nursing home staff have traditionally had lower vaccination rates for influenza compared with health care personnel working in hospitals and ambulatory care settings [10]. The concerns including potential adverse reactions, perceived personal lack of susceptibility to infection and perceived lack of vaccine effectiveness. They also reported a general lack of trust for influenza virus stating that they are not effective, could potentially lower immunity, and not needed for healthy people [11].The COVID-19 pandemic presents additional potential hurdles given the unprecedented speed of vaccine development.
Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the certified nurse assistants (CNAs) who provide much of the care in nursing homes is critically important to reversing the pandemic’s trajectory of illness, death, and isolation in these settings.
To ascertain the degree of and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in this population of nursing home caregivers, the National Association of Health Care Assistants (NAHCA) conducted an informal poll in November 2020 of thousands of CNAs about whether or not they would take the COVID vaccine once it became available, and their reasons for planning to accept or decline the vaccine.
Study Hypothesis
Vaccine hesitancy among health care workers is lesser compared to general population.
Setting and sample
The study was conducted by National Association of Health Care Assistants (NAHCA) which is the only national professional organization that represents certified nurse assistants throughout USA that was found in 1995. The sample population of our study are the certified nursing assistants in the United States. Currently there are around 26,000 registered members in the organization. The study setting was a private group in a social media platform that consists of 14,919 CAN members. The inclusion criteria was subjects registered with national association of health care assistants as certified nurse assistants. Any subjects who are not a CNA were excluded from the study.
Measures/Procedures
A confidential online survey was conducted on November 16, 2020 and reached 7,000 CNAs through social media platforms of a private group in Facebook in which NHCHA routinely engages. CNAs were asked to respond to the question “Will you take the COVID-19 vaccine?” They were asked to select “yes,” “no,” or “undecided.” They were also asked to explain their reasons in planning to accept or decline vaccination.
Analysis
The qualitative data answers were tabulated, and their responses were analyzed for major themes (greater than 10 people entering the same responses) and sub-themes (greater than 5 people entering the same responses). The data was stored in a password protected computer.
Three independent study coordinators confirmed the themes and subthemes mentioned in the survey.
The quantitative data were compared to a study that published about vaccine hesitancy in general public around the same time [12] and paired 2 tailed t-test was used to compare that data to measure for statistical significance (p < 0>
Out of the 26,000 registered members, the survey poll reached 7000 recipients (27%). Of 7,000 survey recipients, 3,119 responded (a 45% response rate). Of the respondents, 2,233 (71.6%) replied no to future COVID-19 vaccination, and 698 (22.4%) replied yes. The remaining 188 (6.0%) were undecided.
The study results was compared to a rapid national assessment of COVID19 vaccine hesitancy in general population that reported out of 1878 population, 1467 was likely to take the vaccine and 411 was unlikely to take the vaccine [12]. A paired 2 tailed t-test using Excel 2016 showed a p value of 0.88 which was not statistically significant.
Of the reasons provided for planned rejection of a COVID-19 vaccine, a lack of trust and lack of education and information on the vaccine were major themes. Lack of trust on the newly produced vaccine without sufficient clinical trials to validate appears to be major concern among CNAs. Also the lack of education and information regarding the vaccine and herd immunity appears to be another major concern that contribute towards vaccine hesitancy.
Hesitancy due to the rapidness of the vaccine launches, a lack of information on potential risks and side effects, and a lack of knowledge of the ingredients in the vaccine were among the sub-themes. The speed of vaccine roll out program has generated concerns among the CNA community about the efficacy of the vaccine. The anticipated risks and adverse effects that have not been previously studied along with the lack of knowledge about the ingredients and the mechanism of action of the vaccine as well as the effect on vulnerable population including elderly, pregnant and breast feeding individuals are factors that also contributed to the vaccine hesitancy.
Comments reflecting hesitancy over rapid vaccine development include the following: “Not happening until it’s been researched more. I will take it after I see all the long-term effects it has on others, as any vaccine can be deadly to some. I will not be the test dummy.”/ “Once it’s been on the market and used for at least a year, with clearly documented side effects, [I will] take it.” / “I’m not taking a vaccine that I feel was rushed into production. I’ll wait and see how it looks after a few years and make my decision then.” / “We don’t know what the long-term [effects] are going to be from it. And that’s something that can’t just be undone. I have zero desire to sign up for that.”
Some expressed feelings that vaccination was not necessary for protection: “I allow my body to build its [immunities] and fight its own battles the natural way…” / “I am COVID free this far so I must have some good genetics.” Others said they wanted to know more about the vaccine: “I want to know what’s in it and research those ingredients” / “I would take the vaccine but also would like the information to support the decision and I would want to know what to expect afterward.” Some said they would not take the vaccine unless it is mandatory, and others indicated they would quit the profession entirely if COVID-19 vaccination became mandatory.
Most survey respondents who indicated that they would take the vaccine and offered their reasoning explained that their acceptance was due either to experience in already contracting the virus and/or a desire to protect residents. Among their replies: “My residents have been in lockdown for 9 months! 9 LONG months? Don’t they deserve to have a light at the end of their tunnel also?” / “At this point the side effects can’t be much worse than the COVID I’m living with currently [and] anything to keep my residents safe and get us back to a normal life.” /“Absolutely! My residents, community and family are counting on me!” / “I think I would! Due to the fact of having COVID in the past and working in [a hospital] COVID unit.”
Hesitancy among CNAs over COVID-19 immunizations is in part unsurprising. Studies conducted during the initial months of the pandemic suggested sizable levels of hesitancy about a future vaccine among health care workers broadly, albeit with gender- and occupation-related discrepancies. Physicians were more likely to indicate acceptance for a COVID-19 vaccine than nurses/nurse assistants [13, 14]. An anonymous survey of 2,047 French healthcare workers conducted from late March through early July, for instance, found that 76.9% would accept vaccination. Older age, male gender, occupation as a physician, fear about COVID-19, individual perceived risk, and prior flu vaccination were associated with greater acceptance of a future vaccine [14].
Concerns about a novel coronavirus vaccine persisted into the fall of 2020. A survey of health care workers in Los Angeles completed between September 24 and October 16, 2020 found that 66.5% of 609 participants intended to delay receiving a future vaccine, with evolving SARS-CoV-2 science and expedited vaccine development among the most impactful reasons. Nurses were 4.15 times more likely to indicate intent to delay than doctors [15]. Another study conducted in October-November in France and French-speaking parts of Belgium and Canada showed 48.6% of health care workers with high acceptance, 23.0% with moderate acceptance, and 28.4% with hesitancy or reluctance. Safety of vaccines developed in an emergency was by far the most important factor associated with hesitancy or reluctance [16].
A study of employees across Yale Medicine and Yale New Haven Health system conducted at the time of FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, in which 1 in 6 expressed hesitancy about receiving the vaccine, identified 15 themes of reluctance; wanting more follow-up was the most common reason. Others included pregnancy, concern about safety or side effects, wanting to see others get the vaccine, wanting more clinical research and study, wanting to see study results themselves, having an underlying condition not studied, and having severe allergies or prior reactions to vaccines [17].
Also notable in considering CNA hesitancy is the finding in public polls of U.S. adults that there is a lesser likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among respondents who are younger, female, and Black [18, 19]. These demographics characterize a sizable portion of the CNA population.
Our survey of CNAs is not the first study to show hesitancy of COVID-19 immunization in this population of health care workers. When the Indiana Department of Health surveyed nursing home and assisted living facility staff in its state in mid-November 2020, only 45% of 8,243 respondents indicated they would be willing to get an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine when it became available. Concerns about side effects were the primary reason (70%) for hesitancy. Other reasons were health concerns, questions about effectiveness, religious reasons, the need for more research, and a lack of trust [20].
Still, our finding that less than one-quarter of CNAs indicated receptiveness to getting a COVID-19 vaccine in November 2020 is surprising in its magnitude and concerning in that CNAs provide the most direct and hands-on care for nursing home residents. The finding that a lack of trust and a lack of education and information on the vaccine were driving much of the vaccine hesitancy in late 2020 indicates that ongoing education, discussion, and vaccination opportunities are essential.
Effective communication about COVID-19 vaccines requires respectful and interactive discussion that considers concerns, provides up-to-date information about vaccine efficacy and safety, and shares the experience of employees who have received their vaccines [17]. Leaders working within facilities to boost CNA vaccination rates can follow expert advice that has been provided for dealing with COVID-19 misinformation more broadly: listen carefully to their concerns, show respect and empathy, refrain from feeling offended by mistrust and misinformation, and celebrate their willingness to have conversations. Redirecting CNAs to trustworthy information sources and explaining what is known medically are important steps to building trust [21].
Our finding of vaccine willingness being tied at least in part to the protection of nursing home residents suggests that highlighting the benefits of immunization to the community, as well as oneself, may also be beneficial.
There may be legal and ethical justification in the future for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for staff of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, given that mandatory influenza vaccination requirements for health care workers are supported by some professional medical associations and states. However, under the scenario of emergency use authorization, mandating vaccination is not likely to be widely supported.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that nursing home residents were getting vaccinated at significantly higher rates than staff at long-term care facilities, particularly nursing homes, during the first month of the CDC’s pharmacy partnership program with CVS and Walgreens [21, 22]. However, there is reason to be hopeful that with ongoing attention, CNA acceptance of COVID-19 immunizations will increase over time. of the nursing home staff who were surveyed in mid-November 2020 by the Indiana Department of Health, 44% of those who were unwilling to take the vaccine upon availability said they would consider it in the future [20, 23]. The NAHCA has periodically and informally polled its member CNAs and has found a 20% increase in vaccine willingness in early 2021 compared with November 2020 when its poll was conducted.
Our study has several limitations. The study being an observational study conducted via a confidential online survey can induce selection bias as well as reporting bias to our study. The answers were carefully analyzed and the aim of our study was to report the vaccine hesitancy tendencies in health care population. The vaccine hesitancy rate can also differ in different specialties or other sections of health care providers and hence our study cannot be generalized or extrapolated to express view of all health care providers. Besides our poll was conducted in November of 2020, before the advent of the vaccines and current data. Hence the tendencies of vaccine hesitancy can vary in the current scenarios. Further studies are required to understand the vaccine hesitancy among health care workers and general population and measures to reduce the hesitancy.
Ensuring ongoing availability of the vaccines within facilities so that staff may be vaccinated conveniently and without any barriers once decisions are made is essential.
This survey of certified nurse assistants, conducted as COVID-19 vaccine availability was anticipated, revealed that approximately 7 in 10 CNAs did not intend to be vaccinated. Ongoing education that is respectful and interactive is needed to address the reasons for their vaccine hesitancy--mainly a lack of trust, concern about potential risks and side effects, and a lack of understanding or full appreciation for the benefits of vaccination to oneself and the community of vulnerable older adults. Ongoing and convenient access to the vaccines will be essential as education continue and willingness to be vaccinated improves.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
