Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35164700›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among different population groups in China: a national multicenter online survey.

Yiman Huang, Xiaoyou Su, Weijun Xiao, Hao Wang, Mingyu Si, Wenjun Wang, Xiaofen Gu, Li Ma, Li Li, Shaokai Zhang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Yiman HuangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyou SuSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. suxiaoyou@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4216-2142
Weijun XiaoSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hao WangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Mingyu SiSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wenjun WangSchool of Nursing, Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Xiaofen GuAffiliated Tumor Hospital, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Li MaPublic Health School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Li LiDepartment of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Shaokai ZhangHenan Cancer Hospital, Affiliate Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Chunxia YangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, West China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yanqin YuSchool of Public Health, Department of Clinical Research, Baotou Medical College, Baotou, China.
Youlin QiaoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNBaotou Medical College · CNDalian Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University · CNJining Medical University · CNWest China Medical Center of Sichuan University · CNXinjiang Medical University · CNZhengzhou University · CN

Funding

the Asian Regional Special Cooperation Fund of National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China BLXM01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 vaccine has been available in China since the beginning of the 2021, however, certain numbers of people are reluctant for some reasons to vaccinate. The high vaccine coverage is crucial for controlling disease transmission, however, the vaccine hesitancy might be a barrier to the establishment of sufficient herd immunization. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among different population groups, and explore common barriers and facilitators to vaccination decisions.

methodsThe current survey was performed among Chinese students, public health professionals, medical workers and general population from January to March 2021 from seven cities in China. The questionnaire contained sociodemographic information, concerns about infection with COVID-19, general vaccination behaviors and attitudes, the General Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and other potential factors. Univariate analysis was conducted by chi-squared test, and variables significant at P < 0.10 were then included in a multivariable regression model.

resultsThe prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 15.6% in our study, and 23.9% of students, 21.2% of the general population, 13.1% of medical workers, and 10.4% of public health professionals had vaccine hesitancy. The results of multivariate analysis indicated that participants who had received negative information of COVID-19 vaccine (OR: 1.563, 95% CI: 1.229-1.986) and who had doubts about the information source (OR: 2.157, 95% CI: 1.697-2.742) were more likely to have vaccine hesitancy. While those who needed transparent information about COVID-19 vaccine (OR: 0.722, 95% CI: 0.535-0.973) and who would get COVID-19 vaccine if doctors recommended (OR: 0.176, 95% CI: 0.132-0.234) were less likely to have COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

conclusionsGiven recommendations from medical workers about vaccination can motivate people to accept COVID-19 vaccination, appropriate training in knowledge about vaccines and communication skills are necessary for them to increase public's willingness of vaccination. Reducing the spread of misinformation and disseminating facts in a timely and accurate way will likely reduce vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, to establish suitable communication strategies and information exchange platforms between the government and the public and a warning system on infodemic would be helpful to improve public's confidence in vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesChinaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPopulation GroupsSARS-CoV-2VaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesChinaCOVID-19InfodemicMedical workersVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35164700
PMCPMC8845236
OpenAlexW4225736950

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.