ArticleVaccines2022
The Dynamic Relationship between the Intention and Final Decision for the COVID-19 Booster: A Study among Students and Staff at the University of Liège, Belgium.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Contributing to Pneumococcal, COVID-19, and Influenza Vaccine Uptake Among People Living With HIV in Belgium: A Retrospective Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Global disparities in COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance and hesitancy: An updated narrative review.Vaccine: X · 2024Review
- Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination on confusion around vaccination in general: A longitudinal study on a university population over 18 months.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Vaccine hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home staff fully vaccinated with the primary vaccination course in Belgium.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among the people of Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Using the Modified 5C Scale in Zhejiang Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Review
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While many studies have documented the intentions for the COVID-19 vaccine booster, few have explored the change from intention to final decision. This study explores the COVID-19 booster intentions and the change from intention to decision in a primo-vaccinated university population, with a distinction between staff members and students. It looks at the sociodemographic and medical characteristics, health literacy, personal COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and attitudes/intentions regarding the booster, among the 1030 participants (64.4% staff members, 61.3% female, median age 36.0 years). Of the 8.7% who were initially hesitant, 72.7% ultimately got a booster and 27.3% did not. Another 84.2% intended to get a booster and 7.1% did not. Among the latter two groups, 88.9% maintained their intention and 11.1% changed their minds. The determinants associated with the intentions were health literacy and previous intentions regarding the COVID-19 primo-vaccination. The determinants associated with the change to non-vaccination were a previous COVID-19 infection, a past COVID-19 primo-vaccination intention, and a neutralizing antibody level. The results point to an opening for the support in decision-making, with a significant percentage of the study population potentially changing their mind between intention and final decision; this process should start early and be tailored to the individual's COVID-19 history. A personalized approach seems necessary in order to ensure that individuals make an informed choice.
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.