ArticleClinical epidemiology and global health
Adverse reactions of different COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Mosul, Iraq.
Article in Clinical epidemiology and global health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 disease was highly infectious causing a declaration of a global pandemic and the scientists believed that developing a safe and effective vaccine was the solution. Various vaccine candidates were announced by different health authorities. Many factors affect the acceptance of vaccines. This study aims to explore the perceptions, attitudes, and expectations of healthcare professionals (HCPs) toward COVID-19 vaccines. Method: A qualitative study approach was conducted by using face-to-face semi-structured interviews with HCPs in Mosul city, Iraq. Results: Twenty-five HCPs participated in the interviews. After qualitative analysis four main themes emerged: perception of vaccines; participants believed that vaccines were vital inventions, motivations to take the vaccine; most HCPs were motivated based on the scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 vaccines, expectations about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines; participants had different opinions based on the type of the vaccine and the available data, side effects experienced; severe side effects were expected but only mild adverse reactions were experienced by the majority. Conclusion: HCPs had good knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines which was not affected by rumors and misinformation. In contrast to their expectations, the experienced side effects of the first and the second doses were mild to moderate in severity. The majority of HCPs based their choice of the vaccine on the efficacy and safety profile of the available options.
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.