Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35446850›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Assessment of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Zimbabweans: A rapid national survey.

Paddington Tinashe Mundagowa, Samantha Nokuthula Tozivepi, Edward Tafumaneyi Chiyaka, Fadzai Mukora-Mutseyekwa, Richard Makurumidze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Paddington Tinashe MundagowaClinical Research Centre, College of Health, Agriculture & Natural Science, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0002-7788-4874
Samantha Nokuthula TozivepiClinical Research Centre, College of Health, Agriculture & Natural Science, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe.
Edward Tafumaneyi ChiyakaDepartment of Health Policy & Management, College of Public Health, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, United States of America.
Fadzai Mukora-MutseyekwaClinical Research Centre, College of Health, Agriculture & Natural Science, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0002-4065-4880
Richard MakurumidzeZimbabwe College of Public Health Physicians, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0001-6490-1818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs a way of minimising the devastating effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, scientists hastily developed a vaccine. However, the scale-up of the vaccine is likely to be hindered by the widespread social media misinformation. We therefore conducted a study to assess the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Zimbabweans.

methodsWe conducted a descriptive online cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire among adults. The questionnaire assessed willingness to be vaccinated; socio-demographic characteristics, individual attitudes and perceptions, effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to examine the independent factors associated with vaccine uptake.

resultsWe analysed data for 1168 participants, age range of 19-89 years with the majority being females (57.5%). Half (49.9%) of the participants reported that they would accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Majority were uncertain about the effectiveness of the vaccine (76.0%) and its safety (55.0%). About half lacked trust in the government's ability to ensure availability of an effective vaccine and 61.0% mentioned that they would seek advice from a healthcare worker to vaccinate. Chronic disease [vs no chronic disease-Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 1.50, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)I: 1.10-2.03], males [vs females-AOR: 1.83, 95%CI: 1.37-2.44] and being a healthcare worker [vs not being a health worker-AOR: 1.59, 95%CI: 1.18-2.14] were associated with increased likelihood to vaccinate.

conclusionWe found half of the participants willing to vaccinate against COVID-19. The majority lacked trust in the government and were uncertain about vaccine effectiveness and safety. The policy makers should consider targeting geographical and demographic groups which were unlikely to vaccinate with vaccine information, education and communication to improve uptake.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2VaccinationVaccination HesitancyYoung AdultZimbabweCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID35446850
PMCPMC9022878

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.