ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022
Explaining higher Covid-19 vaccination among some US primary care professionals.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Anticipated Affect That Encourages or Discourages Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Scoping Review.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Cumulative effects of air pollution and climate drivers on COVID-19 multiwaves in Bucharest, Romania.Process safety and environmental protection : transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Part B · 2022Article
- Willingness to accept a second COVID-19 vaccination booster dose among healthcare workers in Italy.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Parents' intention for their children to receive COVID-19 vaccine: Implications for vaccination program in Macao.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveResearch in several countries shows higher Covid-19 vaccination willingness and uptake among physicians than nurses. Our paper aims to characterize and explain this difference.
methodsIn early 2021, we surveyed 1047 U.S. primary care professionals who served adolescents, ages 11-17. The national sample included physicians (71%) as well as nurses and advanced practice providers. The survey assessed the three domains of the Increasing Vaccination Model: thinking and feeling, social processes, and direct behavior change.
resultsCovid-19 vaccine uptake was higher among physicians than among nurses and advanced practice providers (91% vs. 76%, p < .05). Overall, in the thinking and feeling domain, higher confidence in Covid-19 vaccination, higher perceived susceptibility to the disease, and stronger anticipated regret were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p < .05). In the social processes domain, perceiving more positive social norms for Covid-19 vaccination, receiving recommendations to get the vaccine, and wanting to help others were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p < .05). In the direct behavior change domain, receiving an invitation to get the vaccine and better access to vaccination were associated with higher uptake (both p < .05). Of these variables, most of the thinking and feeling and social processes variables mediated the association of training with vaccine uptake.
conclusionsPhysicians had higher Covid-19 vaccine uptake than nurses and advanced practice providers, corresponding with their more supportive vaccine beliefs and social experiences. Efforts to reach the remaining unvaccinated cohort can build on these findings.
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.