ArticlePloS one2022
Infection and vaccination status of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals in academic platform: Prevision vs. reality of Bangladesh context.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 posed the healthcare professionals at enormous risk during this pandemic era while vaccination was recommended as one of the effective preventive approaches. It was visualized that almost all health workforces would be under vaccination on a priority basis as they are the frontline fighters during this pandemic. This study was designed to explore the reality regarding infection and vaccination status of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals of Bangladesh. It was a web-based cross-sectional survey and conducted among 300 healthcare professionals available in the academic platform of Bangladesh. A multivariate logistic regression model was used for the analytical exploration. Adjusted and Unadjusted Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the specified setting indicators. A Chi-square test was used to observe the association. Ethical issues were maintained according to the guidance of the declaration of Helsinki. Study revealed that 41% of all respondents identified as COVID-19 positive whereas a significant number (18.3%) found as non-vaccinated due to registration issues as 52.70%, misconception regarding vaccination as 29.10%, and health-related issues as 18.20%. Respondents of more than 50 years of age found more significant on having positive infection rather than the younger age groups. Predictors for the non-vaccination guided that male respondents (COR/p = 3.49/0.01), allied health professionals, and respondents from the public organizations (p = 0.01) who were ≤29 (AOR/p = 4.45/0.01) years of age significantly identified as non-vaccinated. As the older female groups were found more infected and a significant number of health care professionals found as non-vaccinated, implementation of specific strategies and policies are needed to ensure the safety precautions and vaccination among such COVID-19 frontiers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.