ArticleBMJ open2022
Concerns about and stimuli of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among diverse occupational groups in metropolitan areas of China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccination coverage, willingness and determinants of herpes zoster vaccine among individuals aged 50 and above in Ningbo, China: A population-based cross-sectional study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to identify concerns and stimuli regarding COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and to compare the findings by occupation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 April and 30 June 2021 in four metropolitan areas of China. A total of 20 863 participants completed questionnaires, 20 767 of which were eligible for analysis. We used ordered logistic regression to assess the association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy according to occupation.
resultsFarmers were mainly concerned about the quality of vaccines (adjusted OR (aOR): 3.18, 95% CI (CI): 1.83 to 5.54). Among civil servants, media publicity reduced hesitancy (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.92). Among medical staff, concerns about a short duration of protective effects increased hesitancy (aOR: 8.31, 95% CI: 2.03 to 33.99). For most occupations, concerns about side effects, poor protective effects and health status increased hesitancy. In contrast, protecting oneself and protecting others acted as a stimulus to decrease hesitancy. Interestingly, 'people around me have been vaccinated' was associated with higher vaccination hesitancy among farmers (aOR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.20 to 4.00).
conclusionThe association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy varied by occupation. The characteristics and concerns of specific target audiences should be considered when designing informational campaigns to promote vaccination against COVID-19.
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.