Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36438259›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Employer impact on COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nursing and social care employees in Austria.

Ann-Kathrin Ruf, Sabine Völkl-Kernstock, Magdalena Eitenberger, Marcus Gabriel, Elisabeth Klager, Maria Kletecka-Pulker, Sophie Klomfar, Anna Teufel, Thomas Wochele-Thoma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ann-Kathrin RufLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Sabine Völkl-KernstockMedical University of Vienna, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vienna, Austria.
Magdalena EitenbergerLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Marcus GabrielInstitute for Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Elisabeth KlagerLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Maria Kletecka-PulkerLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Sophie KlomfarLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Anna TeufelLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas Wochele-ThomaLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH · ATUniversity of Vienna · ATMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Since becoming available, vaccines against COVID-19 have been a focus of public debate. This is particularly relevant among healthcare and social workers, who interact with vulnerable patients and clients on a daily basis. With employers implementing educational programs and offering incentives to raise vaccine willingness among their staff, it is crucial to understand drivers of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy as well as the impact employers can play on vaccine decision-making. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study Results: 86.2% of respondents had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. 13.8% were unvaccinated. Vaccinated respondents' main reason for getting the vaccine was to protect themselves (79.6%) as well as others (74.1%), while non-vaccinated respondents cited a fear of short or long-term side effects (58.8 and 42.4%, respectively) as their primary reason for not getting vaccinated. 72.8% of the unvaccinated said no incentive would make them change their mind, while 17.4% specified abstract concepts or systemic change as effective incentives. Monetary incentives were not seen as a motivator. Unvaccinated respondents were significantly more worried about the future than vaccinated respondents (78.8 vs. 26.3%, Conclusion: While employers have the means to mediate public health decision-making by providing information, deciding to become vaccinated is a more complex process including public debate, world views, political influences, and the uptake of information. Employers can act as mediators for public health decision-making, moving policy measures beyond an individualized view of health choices and health literacy toward more structural, systemic, and community-based efforts.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAustriaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSocial SupportCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccineemployer impactvaccine hesitancyvaccine incentives

Identifiers

PMID36438259
PMCPMC9686277
OpenAlexW4308868358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.