ArticleEnfermeria clinica
[The determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in a rural area of an Indonesia-Philippines border island: A mixed-method study].
Article in Enfermeria clinica. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program campaign has been underway in Indonesia for people aged ≥ 18 years. The program's success can be hampered by vaccine hesitancy in communities. This study aims to elucidate the determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in a rural area of the Indonesia-Philippines border island Sangihe. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted; a quantitative part involving a cross-sectional survey was carried out among participantes aged ≥ 18 years to determine the prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. The qualitative part involved in-depth interviews to explore the perceptions towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Result: Among 557 participantes, the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 63.9% (95% CI: 59.8-67.9). In the adjusted analysis, three factors affected vaccine hesitancy: education (aOR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.22-0.70), knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (aOR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.41-3.34) and willingness to pay (aOR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.07-0.20). The majority of reasons for refusing the vaccine included doubt regarding its safety and effectiveness, the fear of side effects, lack of information regarding the vaccine and local Christians' religious beliefs. Conclusion: This study found that most adults in the area were hesitant about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Lack of knowledge, a low level of education and misinformation were factors that greatly affected vaccination hesitancy. The government, by involving religious leaders, is expected to pay serious attention to the dissemination of accurate and convincing information to the public regarding the safety and importance of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
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.