Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Safa S. Alsaad has a total of 12 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines Primer Doses: Experience of Saudi Healthcare Workers Participating in CoVaST-SA

    by Abanoub Riad, Safa S. Alsaad, Ali A. Almurikhi, Fayez A. Alzahrani, Ali M. Alghamdi, Esra H. Alzaid, Miloslav Klugar

    Background: Side effects emerging after COVID-19 vaccines may adversely impact public confidence in vaccines. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines as a part of the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST) study. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out to collect data from healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia. The study was initiated between June and December 2021. A validated questionnaire was used in this study consisting of four categories, including demographic characteristics and medical anamnesis of the participants, COVID-19-associated anamnesis, and side effects of vaccine uptake. Results: The study included 1039 participants, of which 70.2% were females, and their median age was 34. About 82.9% and 52.3% of the participants reported a minimum of both one local and systemic side effect, respectively. Females, young participants (≤34 years old), and non-obese participants had more potential to disclose post-vaccination side effects than their counterparts. Heterologous schedules and viral vector-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of systemic side effects, whereas homologous vaccination schedules and mRNA-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of local side effects. Conclusion: Future studies on COVID-19 vaccines should focus on the role of BMI, previous infection, and vaccination schedule in terms of vaccine safety and reactogenicity.


  • Autonomy and paternalism in shared decision‐making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross‐sectional study

    by Yousef Y. Alabdullah, Esra Alzaid, Safa Alsaad, Turki Alamri, Saleh W. Alolayan, Suliman Bah, Abdullah S. Aljoudi

    Medical paternalism has long been a common medical practice. However, patient autonomy in healthcare has been recently adopted by doctors and patients alike. This study explored whether doctors and patients in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia preferred autonomy or paternalism in shared decision‐making. A total of 118 participants (51 patients requiring total knee replacement, owing to stages 3–4 of osteoarthritis, and 67 doctors) from the Eastern province, Saudi Arabia. responded to a 17‐question category‐based questionnaire involving four scales of autonomy. Descriptive statistics and chi‐square test results revealed that in this hospital, patients preferred a paternalistic approach toward their medical care along with a full disclosure of the risks related to surgical procedures. We recommend health education regarding the specific autonomy subscales (doctor knows best, patient should decide, right to non‐participation, and obligatory risk information), and the implementation of protocols that protect patients' rights and enhance personal autonomy.