Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37000826›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Understanding the barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst healthcare workers and healthcare students worldwide: An umbrella review protocol.

Jemma McCready, Dania Comparcini, Bethany Nichol, Mary Steen, John Unsworth, Marco Tomietto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Jemma McCreadyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Dania ComparciniPolitecnica Delle Marche University of Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Bethany NicholDepartment of Social Work, Education, and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Mary SteenFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
John UnsworthFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Marco TomiettoFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3813-1490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and healthcare students are at increased risk of becoming infected with and being a vector of transmission of COVID-19. Vaccination efforts amongst this group of persons have been hampered in some countries by hesitancy to uptake the COVID-19 vaccine. The factors related to vaccine hesitancy have been reported in several systematic reviews. However, a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is greatly needed to address effective interventions in this population. Understanding and designing effective strategies to promote vaccination among HCWs is pivotal to secure an appropriate and safe healthcare provision. The current protocol describes the methodology for an Umbrella Review that explores the barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for HCWs and healthcare students. The databases that will be searched are CINAHL, MedLine, Cochrane Library, PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Science Direct, IBSS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they: (i) conducted a systematic review (with or without meta-analysis); (ii) included primary sources utilizing a quantitative methodology; (iii) investigated factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy; (iv) and included a sub/population of HCWs or healthcare students aged 18-65. The screening processes and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included reviews. The degree to which the included reviews contain the same primary studies will also be assessed and reported. The outcomes of this review will have wide-reaching implications for the research area, healthcare systems and institutions, and governments worldwide.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHealth PersonnelHumansReview Literature as TopicStudentsCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID37000826
PMCPMC10065261

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.