ArticleVaccines2022
COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers: A Retrospective Observational Study in Singapore.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influencing factors and dynamic changes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in China: From the perspective of machine learning analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Time-to-event analysis of COVID-19 precautionary dose vaccination among healthcare workers in a teaching institute of a metropolitan city in India, using Co-WIN data.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Hesitancy towards COVID-19 booster vaccine among healthcare workers in Bangladesh.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Global disparities in COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance and hesitancy: An updated narrative review.Vaccine: X · 2024Review
- Article
- Hesitancy Over the COVID-19 Vaccine Among Various Healthcare Workers: An International Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among the people of Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- Attitudes towards COVID Vaccine and Vaccine Hesitancy in Dermatology: A Narrative Review.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Article
- Predictors of second COVID-19 booster dose or new COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among nurses: A cross-sectional study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2023Article
- Article
- Who is getting boosted? Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake among health care workers.Vaccine: X · 2023Article
- Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Using the Modified 5C Scale in Zhejiang Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Review
- Why Some People Are Hesitant to Receive COVID-19 Boosters: A Systematic Review.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Review
- Attitudes of Healthcare Workers in Israel towards the Fourth Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Association between proximity to COVID-19 and the quality of life of healthcare workers.PloS one · 2023Article
- Providing freedom or financial remuneration? A cross-sectional study on the role of monetary and legal incentives on COVID-19 further booster vaccination intention in the Italian context.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 booster uptake remained poor among healthcare workers (HCW) despite evidence of improved immunity against Delta and Omicron variants. While most studies used a questionnaire to assess hesitancy, this study aimed to identify factors affecting booster hesitancy by examining actual vaccine uptake across time.
methodCOVID-19 vaccination database records among HCW working at seven Singaporean public primary care clinics between January to December 2021 were extracted, with sex, profession, place of practice, vaccination type, and dates. Time to booster was calculated from the date of vaccination minus date of eligibility. Chi-square test was used to compare the relationship between first dose and booster hesitancy, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were adopted to evaluate differences in cumulative booster uptake. Multivariate Cox regression was used to investigate predictors for timely booster vaccination. Vaccination rate was charted across time and corroborated with media releases pertaining to legislative changes.
resultsA total of 877 of 891 (98.9%) primary care HCW were fully vaccinated, 73.8% of eligible HCW had taken the booster. HCW were less booster hesitant [median 16 (5-31.3) days] compared to the first dose [median 39 (13-119.3) days]. First dose-hesitant HCW were more likely to be booster hesitant (OR = 3.66, 95%CI 2.61-5.14). Adjusting for sex, workplace, and time to first dose, ancillary (HR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.03-2.28), medical (HR = 1.8, 95%CI 1.18-2.74), and nursing (HR = 1.8, 95%CI 1.18-2.37) received boosters earlier compared with administrative staff. No temporal relationship was observed between booster uptake, legislative changes, and COVID-19 infection numbers.
conclusionVaccine hesitancy among HCW had improved from first dose to booster, with timely booster vaccination among medical and nursing staff. Tailored education, risk messaging, and strategic legislation might help to reduce delayed booster vaccination.
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.