ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Believing processes around COVID-19 vaccination: An exploratory study investigating workers in the health sector.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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.
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The processes underlying believing have been labeled "creditions", which are important brain functions between emotion and cognition. Creditions are influenced by both internal and external factors, one of which is the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the vaccination against the disease. Methods: To investigate believing processes shortly before the implementation of a mandatory vaccination in Austria, both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers in the health sector (WHS) were surveyed in December 2021/January 2022. In total, 1,062 vaccinated and 97 unvaccinated WHS (920 females) completed the online survey. Beliefs were assessed using the parameters of the credition model (narrative, certainty, emotion, and mightiness) with regard to (1) the COVID-19 pandemic in general, and (2) the vaccination. Type of emotion and narrative were divided into positive, negative, and indifferent. Moreover, the congruence between emotion and narrative was calculated. Results: The vaccination rate of the sample was 91.6%, with a significantly higher percentage of men being in the group of vaccinated (21.1%) as compared to unvaccinated individuals (12.4%). Pertaining beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccination, unvaccinated WHS reported more negative and less positive emotions as well as content of narrative than vaccinated WHS. In addition, they showed higher levels of certainty as well as mightiness while believing and felt less sufficiently informed about governmental and workplace-related COVID-19 measures. The groups did not differ in the type of emotion or content of narrative in their beliefs about the pandemic in general. Conclusion: In conclusion, unvaccinated WHS had more negative and less positive emotions and thoughts than vaccinated WHS in their beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccination and their motivations for not having received it. They were more certain about their beliefs and felt stronger negative emotions in their beliefs compared to vaccinated individuals. Providing unvaccinated WHS with adequate information might be helpful in reducing their mental burden.
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.