ArticleVaccines2022
Satisfaction with COVID-19 Vaccines in Health Care Workers and the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Study in Urban Bangkok, Thailand.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Combined Impact of Omicron Vaccination and Environmental Risk Exposure: A Thailand Case Study.Vaccines · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is a global issue. Many people are concerned about experiencing side effects from the vaccine. This study evaluated satisfaction with the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population (GP) and healthcare workers (HCWs) in Bangkok, Thailand. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed from September-December 2021. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare GP and HCW participants’ total vaccine satisfaction scores as well as their satisfaction with varying vaccine types. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of satisfaction scores among GP and HCWs. Results: A total of 780 valid questionnaire responses were obtained. The majority of GP participants (n = 390) had received their first (93.3%) and second (88.5%) vaccination shots by viral vector vaccine; however, 90% had not received a third dose (booster). In contrast, the majority of HCW participants (n = 390) had received their first (92.8%) and second (82.8%) vaccination doses by the inactivated vaccine, and 83% had received a third vaccine dose. HCWs had significantly higher total satisfaction scores than GP participants (p = 0.034), and they were also significantly more satisfied with the mRNA vaccine as a third dose (p = 0.001). Multiple linear regression models found less association with vaccine satisfaction among GP participants who had not isolated following exposure to COVID-19 and those who have never been at risk of infection (ᵦ −0.159; 95% CI −12.867, −1.877; p = 0.009). Among HCWs, being married (ᵦ 0.157; 95% CI 0.794, 3.278; p = 0.001) or divorced (ᵦ 0.198; 95% CI 3.303, 9.596; p < 0.01) was more closely associated with vaccine satisfaction than being single. Conclusion: HCWs were more satisfied with the type and efficacy of inactivated, viral vector, and mRNA vaccines than GP participants, and the former were also more satisfied with the cost of vaccine boosters. Our results indicate that satisfaction with the COVID-19 vaccine is based on academic knowledge sharing and the government’s promotion efforts. Future research will explore strategies to raise awareness about the importance of vaccination.
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.