ArticleVaccines2022
Confidence in a Vaccine against COVID-19 among Registered Nurses in Barcelona, Spain across Two Time Periods.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of vaccine beliefs on the COVID-19 vaccination among Polish medical staff and students: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Temporal trends in vaccine hesitancy among Caribbean health workers: analysis of 2021 and 2024 surveys.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- I want to be safe: understanding the main drivers behind vaccination choice throughout the pandemic.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Attitudes towards COVID Vaccine and Vaccine Hesitancy in Dermatology: A Narrative Review.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report the vaccine hesitancy (VH) for a vaccine against COVID-19 in registered nurses in Barcelona, with measurements taken at two stages, prior to the vaccination campaign and once 75% vaccination coverage had been reached.
methodsA self-completed online survey was administered in December 2020 and again in July 2021 through the College of Nurses of Barcelona. It measured the prevalence of VH against a government-approved vaccine recommended by their employer, their intention to be vaccinated, perceptions of disease risk and vaccine protection, attitudes and beliefs to vaccination and social norm. Bivariate analysis according to VH and application time are presented.
results2430 valid responses were obtained in the first measurement and 2027 in the second. At both times, 86% were women and 69% worked mainly in the public sector. Prior to the vaccine availability, VH was 34.2%, decreasing to 17.9%. Risk perceptions were significantly lower in those with VH compared to non-VH, in all groups studied and at both times, while safety and efficacy perceptions increased in all groups, significantly less in VH. The greatest benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine is perceived by pharmaceutical companies. VH nurses perceived a more hesitant social environment.
conclusionAs the vaccination was rolled out, VH in nurses declined, with time improving the confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Risk perceptions also decreased over time, except for the perception of severity in HCW where it increased. Trust in institutions impacts trust in vaccines.
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.