ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study on the Risk of Getting Sick with COVID-19, the Course of the Disease, and the Impact of the National Vaccination Program against SARS-CoV-2 on Vaccination among Health Professionals in Poland.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimation of Total Cost Required in Controlling COVID-19 Outbreaks by Financial Incentives.International journal of environmental research and 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Six months after starting the National Vaccination Program against COVID-19, a cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted among 1200 salaried and non-salaried healthcare workers (HCWs) in Poland. Its aim was to assess factors including the risk of exposure to COVID-19, experiences with COVID-19, the trust in different sources of knowledge about the pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the government campaign on vaccination as predictors of vaccination acceptance. The strongest awareness of a high risk of work-associated infection was demonstrated by doctors (D) (72.6%) and nurses and midwives (N) (64.8%); however, almost half of the medical students (MS) and nursing and midwifery students (NS) did not identify as a risk group. Out of several dozen variables related to sociodemographic characteristics and personal experience of COVID-19, only occupation, previous COVID-19 infection, and high stress seemed to significantly influence vaccination acceptance. Interestingly, only 6.7% of respondents admitted that the government campaign impacted their decision to vaccinate. This result is not surprising considering that the vast majority of respondents (87.8%) learned about vaccinations from sources such as academic lectures (29.9%), health professionals (29.0%), or the internet (28.9%). Those who gained information about vaccination from traditional media (radio, television, and daily press), a popular platform of the government campaign, had a lower propensity to vaccinate (OR = 0.16, p < 0.001). Additionally, almost twice as many considered the information provided in the campaign to be unreliable. Our findings, from this retrospective study, do not confirm that the government campaign was effective for healthcare professionals. Therefore, in this group, other forms of vaccination incentives should be sought. However, the vaccinated respondents were significantly more likely to support compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 among health professionals.
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.