ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023
Qualitative assessment of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers in Pima County.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 vaccination intention among nursing, medical, and dental students: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the Spring of 2021, the COVID-19 vaccination was authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are one of the most trusted sources of information for vaccination choices. However, HCWs at this time appeared to continue to have lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination uptake than expected in Arizona. The objective of this study was to examine factors that play a role in the vaccination decision-making process among Arizona HCWs. Between January and April 2021, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted among physicians, emergency medical technicians and long-term care nurses in Pima County. The informed consent process was completed for each participant. The interview guide was informed by the Increasing Vaccination model to collect information on vaccination decision-making. A codebook was developed using an inductive approach. Coding and analysis was conducted using the software MAXQDA. Participants were primarily male (11/18, 61%) and white (11/18, 61%). Three participants identified as Hispanic. Initial themes that emerged included: mixed opinions concerning the innovations in COVID-19 vaccine development, access-related barriers, issues related to distribution inequities, concerns about misinformation and conspiracy theories, and dialogue concerning the benefits of requiring mandatory vaccination. The results gathered from this study indicate that there continues to be hesitancy among some healthcare professionals in Pima County. These results will be used to help Arizonan Health Departments promote rollout of novel vaccines more effectively through targeting relevant vaccination decision-making factors among HCWs.
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.