Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35400032›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Exploring Healthcare Workers' Awareness and Perception of Vaccine Effectiveness: A National Survey During the First Week of WHO Variant Alert.

Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Fadi Aljamaan, Shuliweeh Alenezi, Khalid Alhasan, Abdulkarim Alrabiaah, Rasha Assiri, Rolan Bassrawi, Ali Alhaboob, Fatimah Alshahrani, Mohammed Alarabi and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Mohamad-Hani TemsahCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fadi AljamaanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Shuliweeh AleneziCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid AlhasanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulkarim AlrabiaahCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rasha AssiriDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rolan BassrawiDepartment of Pediatric, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ali AlhaboobCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fatimah AlshahraniCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlarabiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ali AlarajDepartment of Medicine, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Nasser S AlharbiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rabih HalwaniSharjah Institute of Medical Research, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Amr JamalCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ayman Al-EyadhyCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Naif AbdulMajeedDepartment of Pediatric, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Lina AlfarraDepartment of Ob-Gyn, Dr. Abdul Rahman Al Mishari Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Wafa AlmashdaliDepartment of Ob-Gyn, Dr. Fatina Imran Medical Complex, Doha, Qatar.
Amel FayedDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad AlzamilCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mazin BarryCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ziad A MemishKing Saud Medical City, Ministry of Health and Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Jaffar A Al-TawfiqDepartment of Specialty Internal Medicine and Quality, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahra, Saudi Arabia.
Sarah AlsubaieCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud Medical City · SAKing Saud University · SAPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SAAlfaisal University · SAQassim University · SARiyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SASaudi Aramco Medical Services Organization · SAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Sharjah · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant spreads in several countries, healthcare workers' (HCWs) perceptions and worries regarding vaccine effectiveness and boosters warrant reassessment. Methods: An online questionnaire among HCWs in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed from Dec 1st-6th 2021 to assess their perceptions, vaccine advocacy to the Omicron variant, and their perception of the effectiveness of infection prevention measures and vaccination to prevent its spread, their Omicron variant related worries in comparison to the other variants, and their agreement with mandatory vaccination in general for adults. Results: Among the 1,285 HCW participants, two-thirds were female, 49.8 % were nurses, 46.4% were physicians, and 50.0% worked in tertiary care hospitals. 66.9% considered vaccination to be the most effective way to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant and future variants. The respondents however perceived social distancing (78.0%), universal masking (77.8%), and avoiding unnecessary travel (71.4%) as slightly superior to vaccination to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants. HCWs aging 55 or older agreed significantly with vaccine ineffectiveness to control Omicron spread, while those who believed in non-pharmacological infection prevention measures agreed significantly with vaccination for that purpose. Male HCWs had a significant agreement with mandatory vaccination of all eligible adult populations. On the other hand, unwilling HCWs to receive the vaccine had strong disagreements with mandatory vaccination. Conclusions: The current study in the first week of Omicron showed that only two-thirds of HCWs felt that vaccination was the best option to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant, indicating the need for further motivation campaigns for vaccination and booster dose. HCWs had a strong belief in infection prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants that should be encouraged and augmented.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePerceptionSARS-CoV-2World Health OrganizationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19 vaccinehealthcare workers' perceptionsOmicron variantSARS-CoV-2 Omicron variantSARS-CoV-2 variants

Identifiers

PMID35400032
PMCPMC8989964
OpenAlexW4225697249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.