Registry Systems for COVID-19 Vaccines and Rate of Acceptability for Vaccination Before and After Availability of Vaccines in 12 Countries: A Narrative Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
30 Vaccination programs are complex public health interventions that offer major health benefits. Measurable of vaccination coverage is a major health indicator
needs ref
34 in the genome of SARS-COV 2, helped
of the genome
31 The recent pandemic highlighted various global problems in pandemic crisis management but also stressed significant opportunities for reorganizing health structures and services
repeating words, meaning isn’t clear
38 While mRNA technology first appeared as a technology used for vaccine production for mass vaccination, it also gave us a significant amount of data about immunogenicity and the safety of vaccines [2,3].
repeating technology and vaccines in the same sentence. meaning isn’t clear. perhaps 2 thoughts here.
46 Immunisation registries are confidential, population-based, computerised databases that record all the immunisation doses administered by volunteers and health personnel to persons residing within a specific locality [5,6].
seems to be generalizing here. Not all registries are confidential. The statements misrepresent the citations.
49 Immunisation registries gather immunisation information on all citizens with increased interest in preschool children or specific groups such as health professionals or the elderly residing in a specific geographic area.
I don’t think this statement is true. should include a citation. It seems to counter your confidentiality statement
63-82: several statements point to the fact that not all areas have registries, and those registries are limited to some extent and degree. These statements counter earlier generalizing statements about registries.
87 computerised (previously nine), with 83% of local health units equipped with a computerised register (previously 70%). Eight of the 15 fully computerised regions use the same
previously it was zero. previously 9 when? misspellings. point of statement unclear
83-123 history section seems to be random assortment of unrelated information. Italy is brought up first and isn’t related to the previously focus of the USA or to the following european countries discussed as 3 categories: those w a IIS, those developing one and those without. The organization of this section is confusing and doesn’t lead to a scientific question which is typically addressed in the last paragraph of the Introduction before M&M.
130 We examined also studies
We also examined studies
135-140 better in the introduction
The main targets of IIS for COVID 19 vaccines were: 146
targets ?
info collected? objectives?
156 In all countries except Australia, studies were conducted before vaccines availability and vaccination acceptance was approximately the same as the vaccination coverage.
this is confusing. how can people be covered if it is before availability? If referring to a later time period, how long after availability?
Table 1 has no title.
what “date is used” means is unclear, should be rephrased. delineations between countries isn’t obvious. use a line to separate them or something
The goal is to vaccinate the entire population over 12 years of age.
is this data?
171 Vaccine registry systems were developed for COVID-19 vaccines to include all these aspects to enhance the arguments against antivaxxers.
which registry systems? where? Where is it stated they were developed to counter antivaxxers
reference 33 is not valid
187 In the present narrative review study, we provide data about the vaccines registry systems that were developed during the COVID-19 period in twelve countries around the world and vaccine acceptance rates before the global vaccination campaign started and the vaccination coverage for COVID-19 after the availability of vaccines.
this paragraph shouldn’t be in the discussion. The data isn’t included in the results. There should be a table summarizing the acceptance and vaccination rates between countries since that seems to be the aim of the paper.
191 Health authorities of Greece approved the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on December 2020, and vaccinations were administered first to health care workers on 27 December 2020. A survey conducted in February 2020 before the pandemic in Greece shows that 43% of Greek Health care workers were reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19 [43]. After the two waves of the pandemic have increased cases and deaths of COVID-19, …………………policy and research, and EU digital COVID-19 Certificate [28]].About one year after the vaccination campaign began, (68%) of the total population had received at least one dose and 64% have been fully vaccinated in Greece [45].
This whole section should be results and the values should be included in a table. Comparisons between countries should also include values reflecting confidence in the political system, education, exposure to social media, etc to support statements along these lines.
252 A study was conducted by Taylor et al. before the vaccine against COVID 19 was available for use, when Canada recorded vaccine acceptance 25% in American residents and 20% in Canadian residents. The respondents said that they would not get vac- 254 cinated against SARS-CoV2 although a vaccine was available
These 2 sentences don’t really agree with another. The 25% acceptance folks said they wouldn’t get the vaccine?
256 Vaccine rejection is strongly correlated with mistrust of vaccine benefits and also correlated with worries about unforeseen future effects, concerns about commercial profiteering from pharmaceutical companies, and preferences for natural immunity
presumptive statement, no reference
259 When the participants were asked about incentives for getting vaccinated, respondents were most likely to report that evidence for rigorous testing and safety of the vaccine was of greatest importance [50].
Copied from reference: When asked about incentives for getting vaccinated, respondents were most likely to report that evidence for rigorous testing and safety of the vaccine were of greatest importance.
269 Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination [52].
Copied from reference: Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination
338 The first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in Japan on January 16, 2020, in a resident of Kanagawa Prefecture, located on the central coast of Japan's largest island, Honshu.
Copied from reference: The first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in Japan on January 16, 2020, in a resident of Kanagawa Prefecture, located on the central coast of Japan's largest island, Honshu, who had returned from Wuhan, China.
338 The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in Japan at a very early state leading to a gradual transmission curve and controlled through the implementation of active surveillance. There were no strict quarantine measures [58]
Copied from reference: The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection from China was detected in Japan at a very early state leading to a gradual transmission curve and apparently controlled through implementation of active surveillance. There were no strict quarantine measures.
345 In addition, males showed less hesitancy towards being vaccinated than females [59].
Copied from reference: In addition, males showed less hesitancy towards being vaccinated.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Im thankful to review the paper entitled 'The Association between Mental Health Symptoms and 2 Quality and Safety of Patient Care before and during 3 COVID-19 among Canadian Nurses'.
The paper is interesting and deal with the emerging topic. The introduction is clear and well arranged. The methodology sounds good and the statistical analyses and study design are readable and informative.
The discussion is good even could be improved. The finding of paper sustains the need for protective actions but I suggest enhancing the discussion paragraph debating the outcome of other researches detecting the mental health recovering by health workers comparing first and second wave pandemic.
Could be useful to include folllowing papers:
https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14143
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.671400
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.608413
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study represents a narrative review concerning the acceptability and percentage of vaccination against covid in various countries. The scope of the study is entirely covered by the results and the manuscript is in general well written providing useful data and information. I have only some suggestions and minor modifications:
Before analysing the Immunisation Information Systems for each country, the authors should explain more in detail what Immunisation Information Systems are and how they work in general.
In Table1, parentheses in the last column are not necessary.
In Materials and methods, the authors should explain why these twelve countries are representative. What are their characteristics. How did they come to this choice?
In line 130, parenthesis should be replaced by quotation marks (“)
In lines 195-202, any suggestion, on what factors can the different acceptance rates be attributed?
What about Israel in lines 220-228? Can the authors provide any commentary for this fact?
Lines 387-390: This part is from the template and should be deleted
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
After reading this article, I think the conclusions are inconsistent with our usual impressions of the COVID-19. Therefore, I suggest a major revision of this article is necessary before accepting it.
The authors first conclude that a computerized database vaccines registry system is necessary for recording the vaccination coverage against COVID-19. However, it is easy to expect that most nations have such a monitoring system without reviewing any paper since injecting COVID-19 vaccines is usually implemented by governments. Thus, I guess readers of this manuscript may think this conclusion is valueless if accepting this article in the present form.
The authors also suggested sharing the vaccination coverage data, data for safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and complete data that vaccines registry systems could offer with the WHO, CDC, ECDC, and similar international institutions. They concluded this sharing improves the vaccination coverage. Nevertheless, many readers of this manuscript (including me) may think the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines is the most critical problem in preventing the spreading of COVID-19. Hence, I suggest the authors state more clearly whether the international sharing of vaccination coverage data, data for safety, and effectiveness of vaccines, and other related data can improve the allocation of vaccines.
In my opinion, only one thing in the conclusion of this article is correct. The German experiences, for example, show the importance of making any information about COVID-19 public.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
409 It’s 408 very clear that the health crisis by SARS-COV 2 it is a global epidemic and not endemic at this time. Safe and effective of COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time. But the virus is moving faster than the global distribution of vaccines.
There are conflicting statements here and assumptions. I believe it is very clear SARS-COV-2 is near endemic status, the vaccines were only partially effective, vaccines don't prevent the spread, perhaps slows but to what degree? The asymptomatic, vaccinated and previously infected are all spreading the virus. There are several statements throughout this manuscript that counter this fact. I believe tempering some of the assumptions made by the authors would strengthen the paper tremendously.
An example of some of the English problems of the paper are shown below. This is just one of many errors that should be fixed. Im not an English teacher and not the best for proofreading.
348 The confirmation of first case in Japan were done on January 16, 2020, in area of central coast of Japan's island, Honshu . The first pandemic infection wave was detected in Japan on time by the implementation active surveillance. In the first pandemic wave there were no strictly quarantine measures
The confirmation of first case in Japan occurred on January 16, 2020, near the coast of Japan's island, Honshu . The first pandemic infection wave was detected in Japan quickly due to implementation of an active surveillance program. In the first pandemic wave there were no strict quarantine measures.
Author Response
Point by the point response to Reviewer 1.
409 It’s 408 very clear that the health crisis by SARS-COV 2 it is a global epidemic and not endemic at this time. Safe and effective of COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time. But the virus is moving faster than the global distribution of vaccines. There are conflicting statements here and assumptions. I believe it is very clear SARS-COV-2 is near endemic status, the vaccines were only partially effective, vaccines don't prevent the spread, perhaps slows but to what degree? The asymptomatic, vaccinated and previously infected are all spreading the virus. There are several statements throughout this manuscript that counter this fact. I believe tempering some of the assumptions made by the authors would strengthen the paper tremendously.
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer once again for the constructive comment. We modified the text accordingly and added the new reference [73].
“It’s very clear that the health crisis by SARS-COV 2 it is a global epidemic and not endemic at this time. COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time. But the virus is moving faster than the global distribution of vaccines. COVID-19 vaccination is a critical prevention measure to help end the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Early data suggest infections in fully vaccinated persons are more commonly observed with the Delta variant than with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Data show fully vaccinated persons are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2, and infections with the Delta variant in fully vaccinated persons are associated with less severe clinical outcomes.”
An example of some of the English problems of the paper are shown below. This is just one of many errors that should be fixed. Im not an English teacher and not the best for proofreading. 348 The confirmation of first case in Japan were done on January 16, 2020, in area of central coast of Japan's island, Honshu. The first pandemic infection wave was detected in Japan on time by the implementation active surveillance. In the first pandemic wave there were no strictly quarantine measures.
The confirmation of first case in Japan occurred on January 16, 2020, near the coast of Japan's island, Honshu. The first pandemic infection wave was detected in Japan quickly due to implementation of an active surveillance program. In the first pandemic wave there were no strict quarantine measures.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We delete the phrase” In the first pandemic wave there were no strictly quarantine measures”.
We would like to inform the reviewer, Professor Malli she is native English speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
No further questions. This article can be accepted.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
