ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women: a cross-sectional study based on the health belief model.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 vaccination carries no association with childbirth rates in Sweden.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Malaysian pregnant women: prevalence and influencing factors.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Association between the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and fertility trends: a population-level time series analysis for 22 countries.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- The influence of the perception, attitude, and level of trust on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations among pregnant women attending antenatal care clinic in mbeya urban, Tanzania.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- COVID-19 vaccine uptake and associated risk factors among first antenatal care attendees in Zambia, 2021-2022: A repeated cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Review
- Adverse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant mice are gestational age-dependent and resolve with antiviral treatment.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2023Article
- Article
- COVID-19 Vaccination Booster Dose: Knowledge, Practices, and Intention among Pregnant/Planning to Get Pregnant and Lactating Women.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Hesitancy among Pregnant and Lactating Women in Saudi Arabia.Vaccines · 2023Article
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in an antenatal clinic in Durban, South Africa.Southern African journal of infectious diseases · 2023Article
- The impact of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination on maternal-fetal outcomes.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Models of determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-pregnant and pregnant population: Review of current literature".Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnant women are at high risk for affliction by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccination is a main strategy to prevent and manage the COVID-19 pandemic. However, hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination (HACV) is a major public health threat and a major barrier to herd immunity. The aim of the study was to evaluate pregnant women's HACV based on the Health Belief Model (HBM).
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in 2021-2022. Participants were 352 pregnant women selected from several healthcare centers in the north of Iran. Instruments for data collection were a demographic questionnaire, a COVID-19 Knowledge Questionnaire, a COVID-19 Health Belief Questionnaire, and a question about HACV. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effects of the study variables on HACV.
resultsThe rate of HACV was 42.61%. In the regression model, the three factors of perceived benefits (aOR: 0.700; 95% CI: 0.594 to 0.825), cues to action (aOR: 0.621; 95% CI: 0.516 to 0.574), and history of reproductive problems (aOR: 2.327; 95% CI: 0.1.262 to 4.292) had significant effects on HACV (P < 0.001).
conclusionHACV is highly prevalent among pregnant women. The perceived benefits and cues to action components of HBM have significant effects on pregnant women's HACV, while the perceived threat component has no significant effect on it. HBM is a good model to explain HACV among pregnant women. Educational interventions are necessary to improve pregnant women's awareness of the risks of COVID-19 for them and their fetus.
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.