ArticleCureus2023
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Pregnant Women.
Article in Cureus, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Malaysian pregnant women: prevalence and influencing factors.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Properties and performance of a questionnaire assessing COVID-19 vaccine knowledge and attitudes in Brazilian pregnant women.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background COVID-19 has struck the world severely and caused much damage, losses, and a massive impact on different aspects of life. It is an airborne disease that spreads rapidly among populations and can cause severe illness or death. The rapid nature of its spread led to significant challenges to control it. With the introduction of vaccines, strategies need to be developed to prioritize high-risk populations to lower complication rates, hospitalization, and death. Pregnant women are considered a group of high-risk populations. Misinformation about the vaccination efficacy or side effects contributed to general hesitancy, especially among pregnant women. Purpose This study aims to describe the drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Saudi Arabia. Methodology This is a cross-sectional study among pregnant women in the OB/Gyn clinic in King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs (MNG-HA), using an online survey. Descriptive statistics (univariate analysis) was used to examine the population characteristics. The Chi-square test was used for categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables. Further, we used the logistics regression model (multivariate analysis), adjusted for potential confounders, to examine factors associated with women's hesitancy to take the COVID-19 vaccine. All statistical tests were two-sided, and findings were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Result The study included 303 pregnant women. Nearly half of the respondents had their vaccine during their pregnancy (42.24%), believing that the current vaccines' effectiveness for the coronavirus is good (41.25%). More than 73% of participants have received their COVID-19 vaccine before pregnancy. The mean hesitancy and anxiety score was 2 (agree), which concluded that the respondents were hesitant and anxious to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusion The study showed a significant correlation between pregnant women's worries and the intention to take the vaccine. The concerns were mainly about the impact of the vaccine on themselves, their babies, and the pregnancy.
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.