Vaccines are an important tool of preventive medicine. Organized vaccination programs have saved numerous people from serious infectious diseases. Surprisingly, there is a considerable portion of the population who oppose vaccinations. In particular, the existence of anti-vaccination perceptions among travelers to countries with endemic diseases is a major public health concern. Although hesitancy towards vaccinations is not a novel phenomenon, it came back to the forefront during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This review explored the etiology of anti-vaccination beliefs among travelers and drew conclusions about their impact on public health and society in general. For this purpose, a purposeful search for data on the causative factors of vaccine hesitancy and their impact on people’s health was conducted. A descriptive analysis of the findings and conclusions about possible implications in health policy and clinical practice are presented. Fear of side effects, lack of credence in the necessity of vaccines, and mistrust of medical authorities are important causative factors. Their interplay shapes hesitancy towards vaccines. However, anti-vaccination beliefs can also be an aspect of a more general unconventional stance of life. Health care professionals and organizations must be ready to tackle vaccine hesitancy by making the necessary interventions. Correcting misconceptions about vaccinations is a prerequisite for ensuring personal and public health, especially in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Moreover, ensuring the efficacy and safety of vaccines, especially in cases of modern technology applications, is a fundamental factor in addressing people’s concerns about vaccines. For this purpose, medical authorities and organizations must provide accurate and clear information on vaccines so as to eliminate misinformation. Furthermore, clinicians should cultivate their communication skills in order to convey the appropriate messages to prospective recipients of vaccinations.

Sepsis is associated with dysregulated cortisol secretion, leading to abnormal levels of cortisol in the blood. In the early stages of sepsis, cortisol levels are typically elevated due to increased secretion from the adrenal glands. However, as the disease progresses, cortisol levels may decline due to impaired adrenal function, leading to relative adrenal insufficiency. The latter is thought to be caused by a combination of factors, including impaired adrenal function, decreased production of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) by the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, and increased breakdown of cortisol by enzymes such as 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11β-HSD2). The dysregulation of cortisol secretion in sepsis is thought to contribute to the pathophysiology of the disease by impairing the body's ability to mount an appropriate inflammatory response. The actions of cortisol are mediated through two types of corticosteroid receptors: the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) and the glucocorticoid receptor (GCR). In sepsis, the expression and activity of GCR is altered, contributing to the pathophysiology of the disease. GCR expression and activity are typically downregulated in sepsis, impairing the body's ability to mount an appropriate inflammatory response. Given the dysregulation of cortisol secretion and corticosteroid receptors in sepsis, there has been considerable interest in the use of steroids as a treatment for sepsis. The rationale for steroid-based treatment is to supplement the body's endogenous cortisol production, restore normal cortisol levels, and improve the body's ability to mount an appropriate inflammatory response. However, the use of steroids in sepsis remains controversial, and clinical trials have yielded mixed results. Some studies have shown that steroid-based treatment can improve shock reversal, reduce the need for vasopressors, and improve overall survival in patients with septic shock, whereas other studies have found no benefit or even harm from steroid-based treatment in sepsis.

During the pandemic, nurses experienced anger that stemmed from a sense of threat, frustration or even a sense of injustice. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between vaccination hesitancy, anger, cynicism and medical mistrust among nurses, as there are no relevant studies in the literature. The study was conducted online by completing self-report questionnaires. The Dimensions of Anger Reactions-5, the 8-item "Cynical Distrust" scale and the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale were used. For vaccination hesitancy, two questions with a 5-point scale were used; one question examining hesitancy to get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine, and another question examining hesitancy to get vaccinated with the influenza vaccine. 387 nurses (66 men and 321 women) participated in the study. Nurses showed statistically greater hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine compared to hesitancy for the influenza vaccine. The variation in Vaccine Hesitancy was explained by the scores in the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale, the Dimensions of Anger Reactions and the Cynical Distrust Scale. The Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale mediated the relationship between Cynical Distrust Scale and Total Vaccine Hesitancy. The Dimensions of Anger Reactions Scale significantly moderated the indirect effect of Cynical Distrust Scale on Total Vaccine Hesitancy through the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale. In conclusion, it is highly likely that anger is involved in reported vaccine hesitancy both by activating schemas of distrust in others and by adopting antisystemic views of mistrust in the medical system.