Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37900017›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Drivers of vaccine hesitancy among vulnerable populations in India: a cross-sectional multi-state study.

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy, Michael S Mulvey, Kallana Gowda, Meghna Singh, Nitish Kumar Venkatesan, Syama B Syam, Prerak Shah, Shiv Kumar, Angela Chaudhuri, Raghunathan Narayanan and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Parthasarathy KrishnamurthyDepartment of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Michael S MulveyTelfer School of Management, LIFE Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kallana GowdaSwasti, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Meghna SinghCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Nitish Kumar VenkatesanCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Syama B SyamSwasti, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Prerak ShahCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Shiv KumarCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Angela ChaudhuriSwasti, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Raghunathan NarayananCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Abdul Latheef PerneCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Aditya PangariaCatalyst Management Services, Bengaluru, India.
Catalyst Chemical Industries (India) · INUniversity of Houston · USUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: India's Covid-19 vaccination campaign engaged frontline workers (FLWs) to encourage vaccination among vulnerable segments of society. The FLWs report encountering a variety of barriers to vaccination and are often unsuccessful despite multiple visits to the same person. This cross-sectional study aims to pinpoint which of these barriers drive vaccine hesitancy among these segments, to help streamline vaccine communication, including FLW training, to better safeguard the population. Methods: Trained field enumerators contacted 893 individuals from five states across India and collected self-reported assessments of fifteen vaccination barriers (identified through discussions with FLWs), current vaccination status and future vaccination intentions, and covariates (demographics/comorbidities). Factor analysis of the fifteen barriers yielded two factors, one relating to fear of vaccine adverse effects and a second focused on peripheral concerns regarding the vaccine. The covariates significantly associated with current vaccination status were combined under a latent class regime to yield three cluster types (health access, financial strength, and demographics). The primary analysis examined the effect of the two barrier factors, the covariate clusters, and comorbidity, on current vaccination status and future vaccine intentions. Results: Fear of vaccine adverse effects was the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy; peripheral concerns frequently mentioned by the FLWs had no impact. Although cluster membership and the presence of comorbidities predicted vaccine uptake, neither of them materially altered the effect of fear of vaccine adverse effects with the following exception: fear of adverse effects was not associated with vaccination status among young Muslim men. Conclusion: Subject to limitations, these results indicate that interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy should focus primarily on fear associated with vaccines rather than spend resources trying to address peripheral concerns.

Indexed as

Vaccination HesitancyVulnerable PopulationsCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIndiaMaleCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19factor analysisfear of vaccinationfrontline workerslatent class analysismulti-level modelvaccine hesitancyvulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID37900017
PMCPMC10600374
OpenAlexW4387452296

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.