Observational studyVaccine2022
Counselling of non-communicable diseases' patients for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Jordan: Evaluating the intervention.
Observational study in Vaccine, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are at a significantly higher risk of worst outcomes if infected with COVID-19 and thus amongst the main target population for vaccination. Despite prioritizing them for vaccination, the number of vaccinated patients with comorbidities stalled post vaccine introduction. Despite that the government along with partners ran a national awareness campaign to ramp up vaccination coverage, the coverage remained suboptimal. Thus, a one-to-one health counselling initiative was implemented to explore the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines by the NCDs patients and address the main issues surrounding vaccine hesitancy. This study evaluates the impact of this intervention by analyzing the change in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.
methodsIn this analytical observational study, a random sample of 57,794 people living with NCDs were approached. Out of them, 12,144 received one-to-one counselling by a group of trained health professionals. The counselled group's vaccine acceptance was assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 pre- and post- counselling. Moreover, a random sample was followed up 2 months after initial counselling to measure their vaccine acceptance and update their vaccination status.
results44.5% of total respondents were already registered in the vaccination platform. On a scale from 1 to 5, the overall mean confidence significantly increased by 1.63 from 2.48 pre-counselling to 4.11 post-counselling. Two-months post counselling, a random sample was contacted again and had a mean vaccine confidence of 3.71, which is significantly higher than pre-counselling confidence level despite a significant decrease to post-counselling results. DISCUSSION: Implementing an intervention that targets all key factors impacting health decisions, such as health literacy, risk appraisal and response efficacy, helps reach an adaptive response and increase vaccine confidence. Scholars should be cautious when implementing an intervention since it could lead to maladaptive defensive responses. One-to-one interventions are more effective in population when addressing new interventions and 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.