Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36267682›Full record

ArticleSSM. Qualitative research in health2022

Decision-making on COVID-19 vaccination: A qualitative study among health care and social workers caring for vulnerable individuals.

Marta Fadda, Kleona Bezani, Rebecca Amati, Maddalena Fiordelli, Luca Crivelli, Emiliano Albanese, L Suzanne Suggs, Maria Caiata-Zufferey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM. Qualitative research in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marta FaddaInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Kleona BezaniInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Rebecca AmatiInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Maddalena FiordelliInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Luca CrivelliDepartment of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Via Violino 11, 6928, Manno, Switzerland.
Emiliano AlbaneseInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
L Suzanne SuggsInstitute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Maria Caiata-ZuffereyDepartment of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Via Violino 11, 6928, Manno, Switzerland.
Università della Svizzera italiana · CHUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In January 2021, the Swiss government introduced the first COVID-19 vaccines and prioritized allocation to at-risk individuals and professionals working with them. Despite this opportunity, vaccine uptake among staff employed in retirement homes and institutes for people with disabilities was suboptimal. This study aimed to capture real-time decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine among staff employed in nursing homes and institutes for people with disabilities in Southern Switzerland. We conducted semi-structured phone-interviews with 25 staff employed in retirement homes and institutes for people with disabilities between February and May 2021, i.e., when participants had to decide whether they wanted to adhere to the priority vaccination programme. Among participants, 21 either signed up for the COVID-19 vaccination or were fully or partly vaccinated at the time of the interview. For most participants, the vaccination choice was a challenging process: information appeared to be lacking and conflicting; numerous moral principles were at stake and contradictory; the way vaccination was organized clashed with the health values to which respondents had been previously exposed; finally, the fear of discrimination for those who decided not to get vaccinated loomed over the vaccination choice. Participants decided for or against vaccination based on principles, traditions, emotions, and a reflexive assessment of the personal vs. collective benefit of the vaccination, the latter being the most common within the investigated sample. This study shows that deciding to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is a nuanced process and that individuals cannot simply be categorized as "novax" or "provax" based on their vaccination decision.

Indexed as

COVID-19Decision-makingDisabilityHCWNursing homeQualitative studySwitzerlandVaccination

Identifiers

PMID36267682
PMCPMC9561372
OpenAlexW4306174922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.