ArticleBMJ open2022
Vaccination coverage among COVID-19 prevention and control management teams at primary healthcare facilities in China and their attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine: a cross-sectional online survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating practices and difficulties in communicating with patients about COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in Italy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Determinants of Access to the Pentavalent 3 Vaccine Among Children Aged 0-23 months in Cameroon Based on the Demographic and Health Survey 2018.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2025Article
- The factors correlated with COVID-19 vaccination coverage in Chinese hypertensive patients managed by community general practitioner.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Multi-Perspective Views and Hesitancy toward COVID-19 Vaccines: A Mixed Method Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Within-Country Inequality in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage: A Scoping Review of Academic Literature.Vaccines · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the COVID-19 vaccination coverage rate and differences among various COVID-19 prevention primary healthcare (PHC) facilities in China and understand their attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine. These findings are helpful to provide important suggestions to further improve national COVID-19 vaccination rate.
designA nationwide cross-sectional online survey was designed and conducted among COVID-19 prevention and control management teams at PHC facilities in mainland China. In the self-designed questionnaires, each subject was asked to evaluate on a 1-10 scale (10=extremely important/acceptable/influential) the COVID-19 vaccination importance, acceptance and factors related to vaccine hesitancy.
settingSubjects from 31 provinces and autonomous regions including minorities across mainland China were invited to complete the questionnaire between 22 February 2021 and 2 March 2021.
participantsWere selected by multistage stratified sampling, 998 valid questionnaires (valid rate 99.11%) were collected. The respondents were divided into group A (≤5 respondents within each PHC facility, n OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey on vaccination rate and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine included the following: (1) if the subjects think the vaccination is important in containment of COVID-19 pandemic (1-10 scale, 10=extremely important), (2) if they would accept COVID-19 vaccine (1-10 scale, 10=extremely acceptable) and (3) their opinions on 7 factors possibly related to vaccine hesitancy (1-10 scale, 10=extremely influential). All the items were designed based on the previous expert interviews.
resultsOur results showed vaccination rate was greater in group A (85.93%) than in group B (66.43%) (p<0.001). Detailed analyses revealed that in group A, male members were twice as likely to get vaccinated as compared with female members (adjusted OR (aOR): 2.07; 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.43, p=0.004). In group B, those who were at or under the median age had twice the odds of vaccination coverage compared with those who were over the median age (aOR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.22 to 4.33, p=0.010). In addition, those who were specialised in traditional Chinese medicine were less likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19 compared with those who were specialised in general medicine, with the aOR: 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.83, p=0.033). By analysing the factors that influenced the vaccination attitudes among the 998 respondents, we found no significant difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. However, further detailed analyses found that team members with undergraduate college education were less likely to score higher in COVID-19 vaccination importance than those with technical secondary school education (aOR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.93, p=0.035); Furthermore, those with non-medical job titles had nearly twice the odds of giving a higher score for the uncertainty of vaccine efficacy compared with those with junior medical titles (aOR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.85, p=0.016). Team members with a non-medical title were more likely to give a higher score for advice on social sources compared with those with a junior medical title (aOR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.85, p=0.042).
conclusionIn PHC facilities, although there was a higher COVID-19 vaccination rate among COVID-19 prevention and control teams, some subgroups with different descriptive characters showed negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Because primary care workers in China are highly expected to receive the vaccination, and support and educate the public for COVID-19 vaccination. Thus, it is important and necessary to continue to educate them about their vaccination concerns and change their attitudes towards vaccination. Our findings are highly beneficial for designing public vaccination education strategies.
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.