ArticleVaccine: X2023
Development and validation of a multi-dimensional COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy questionnaire.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination on confusion around vaccination in general: A longitudinal study on a university population over 18 months.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines have been developed to tackle the disease. However, many people worldwide were not confident enough to take the vaccines. Developing a questionnaire to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will give the health authorities and policymakers a clear picture to establish appropriate interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy among the community. Methods: In this study, we used a mixed-method design over two phases. Phase 1 entailed a qualitative approach to developing the questionnaire, including a literature search, expert panel review, and focus group discussion. Phase 2 used a quantitative method for establishing the content and construct validity of the questionnaire via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA & CFA). Internal consistency was checked using Cronbach's Alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: We developed a 50-item instrument designed to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the state of Qatar. The study involved 545 adult participants. In terms of content validity, our study showed a value of 0.92 for the scale-level content validity index based on the average and a value of 0.76 for the scale-level content validity index - universal agreement. In the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was calculated at 0.78, with statistical significance (P = 0.001). Regarding model fit indices of the seven-factor model, our findings showed an acceptable model-data-fit, with a relative chi-square: 1.7 (<3), Root mean square error of approximation: 0.05 (<0.08), PCLOSE = 0.41, Comparative fit index: 0.909, Tucker-Lewis index: 0.902, Incremental Fit Index: 0.910 and, Standardized Root mean square residual: 0.067 (<0.08). The seven-factor model of the questionnaire met the criterion of good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73). Conclusion: This tool is deemed of methodological merits in terms of validity, reliability, and determining the underlying conceptual structure of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its associating factors.
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.