Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34155080›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Adenovirus and RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines' perceptions and acceptance among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia: a national survey.

Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Mazin Barry, Fadi Aljamaan, Abdullah Alhuzaimi, Ayman Al-Eyadhy, Basema Saddik, Abdulkarim Alrabiaah, Fahad Alsohime, Ali Alhaboob, Khalid Alhasan and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohamad-Hani Temsah *College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4389-9322
Mazin Barry *College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-2274-007X
Fadi AljamaanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-8404-6652
Abdullah AlhuzaimiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ayman Al-EyadhyCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-6051-9125
Basema SaddikSharjah Institute for Medical Research, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.ORCID 0000-0002-4682-5927
Abdulkarim AlrabiaahCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad AlsohimeCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4979-3895
Ali AlhaboobCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-2126-7874
Khalid AlhasanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4291-8536
Ali AlarajDepartment of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-7706-2328
Rabih HalwaniSharjah Institute for Medical Research, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.ORCID 0000-0002-6516-7771
Nurah Maziad AlamroCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-9489-3994
Fatimah S Al-ShahraniCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Amr JamalCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia med.researcher.2020@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4051-6592
Sarah AlsubaieCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ziad A MemishKing Saud Medical City, Ministry of Health & Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5099-0714
Jaffar A Al-TawfiqSpecialty Internal Medicine and Quality Department, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5752-2235
King Saud Medical City · SAUniversity of Sharjah · AEAlfaisal University · SAJohns Hopkins University · USQassim University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.

designNational cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.

settingOnline, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.

participantsA total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.

interventionData were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1-15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.

resultsAmong the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine's efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine's manufacturing country (28.6%).

conclusionsAwareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdenoviridaeBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePerceptionRNASARS-CoV-2Saudi ArabiaSurveys and QuestionnairesBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesRNAanxiety disordersCOVID-19immunology

Identifiers

PMID34155080
PMCPMC8219485
OpenAlexW3173423627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.