Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34067490›Full record

ArticleVaccines2021

Hesitancy towards COVID-19 Vaccination among Healthcare Workers: A Multi-Centric Survey in France.

Cécile Janssen, Alexis Maillard, Céline Bodelet, Anne-Laure Claudel, Jacques Gaillat, Tristan Delory, On Behalf Of The Acv Alpin Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cécile JanssenCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Infectious Diseases Unit, F-74374 Annecy, France.
Alexis MaillardCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Clinical Research Unit, F-74374 Annecy, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7165-4103
Céline BodeletLaboratoire Inter-universitaire de Psychologie (LIP-PC2S), Université Grenoble, Alpes 1251 Avenue Centrale, 38400 Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5524-6572
Anne-Laure ClaudelCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Clinical Research Unit, F-74374 Annecy, France.
Jacques GaillatCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Clinical Research Unit, F-74374 Annecy, France.
Tristan DeloryCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Clinical Research Unit, F-74374 Annecy, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0165-8934
On Behalf Of The Acv Alpin Study Group
Centre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois · FRLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Physique · FR

Funding

Alpine Arc regional grant 01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination programs against COVID-19 are being scaled up. We aimed to assess the effects of vaccine characteristics on vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in a multi-center survey conducted within French healthcare facilities from 1 December 2020 to 26 March 2021. We invited any healthcare workers naïve of COVID-19 vaccination to complete an online self-questionnaire. They reported on their socio-demographic characteristics, as well as their perception and beliefs towards vaccination. We measured their willingness to get vaccinated in eight scenarios for candidates' vaccines presented sequentially (1 to 4-point scale). Candidates' vaccines varied for efficacy (25%, 50%, 100%), length of immunization (1 year or lifetime), frequency (<1/100, <1/10,000), and severity (none, moderate, severe) of adverse events. We analyzed 4349 healthcare workers' responses with interpretable questionnaires. The crude willingness to get vaccinated was 53.2% and increased over time. We clustered the trajectories of responses using an unsupervised classification algorithm (k-means) and identified four groups of healthcare workers: those willing to get vaccinated in any scenario (18%), those not willing to get vaccinated at all (22%), and those hesitating but more likely to accept (32%) or reject (28%) the vaccination depending on the scenario. In these last two subgroups, vaccine acceptance was growing with age, educational background and was higher among men with condition. Compared to an ideal vaccine candidate, a 50% reduced efficacy resulted in an average drop in acceptance by 0.8 (SD ± 0.8, -23.5%), while it was ranging from 1.4 (SD ± 1.0, -38.4%) to 2.1 (SD ± 1.0, -58.4%) in case of severe but rare adverse event. The acceptance of a mandatory immunization program was 29.6% overall and was positively correlated to the willingness to get vaccinated, ranging from 2.4% to 60.0%. Even if healthcare workers represent a heterogeneous population, most (80%) could accept the vaccination against COVID-19. Their willingness to get the vaccine increased over time and as immunization programs became available. Among hesitant professionals, the fear of adverse events was the main concern. Targeted information campaigns reassuring about adverse events may increase vaccine coverage, in a population with a strong opinion about mandatory immunization programs.

Indexed as

clusteringCOVID-19cross-sectional surveyhealthcare workershesitancyunsupervised learningvaccination

Identifiers

PMID34067490
PMCPMC8224571
OpenAlexW3164034596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.