Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37983237›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Examining the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers in South Africa: A mixed-methods study.

Gavin George, Phiwe Nota, Michael Strauss, Emma Lansdell, Remco P H Peters, Petra Brysiewicz, Nisha Nadesan-Reddy, Douglas Wassenaar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gavin GeorgeHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7258-8470
Phiwe NotaHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-077X
Michael StraussHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Emma LansdellHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Remco P H PetersResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2124-7275
Petra BrysiewiczSchool of Nursing & Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Nisha Nadesan-ReddySchool of Nursing & Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Douglas WassenaarSouth African Research Ethics Training Initiative, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-9231
University of KwaZulu-Natal · ZAFoundation for Professional Development · ZALund University · SE

Funding

Developing Research Innovation, Localization and Leadership in South Africa (DRILL)D43TW010131 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL · PI BRYSIEWICZ, PETRA, MOSHABELA, MOSA · 2015 to 2019
$3.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed examin the factors associated with the uptake and non-acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. We used a mixed-methods design with data from a web-based self-administered survey followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) with selected participants. Of the 6235 HCWs included in our analysis who had fully vaccinated, 3470 (56%) had taken their booster dose with a further 17% intending to get the booster. HCWs aged 35 to 49 years (OR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.15-1.46]), and those aged 50 years or older (OR = 2.66 [95% CI: 2.32-3.05]) were more likely to get the booster dose. Females were less likely to have received the booster dose (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79-0.98]) with doctors more likely (OR = 1.58 [95% CI: 1.35-1.84]) than Nurses to have received the booster dose. HCWs in direct contact with patients (OR = 1.17 [95% CI: 1.00-1.38]) and who had previously received a flu vaccine (OR = 1.99 [95% CI: 1.56-2.55]) were more likely to have received the booster dose. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis: (1) Vaccination as routine practice among HCWs; (2) Emergence of new COVID-19 variants necessitating vaccine boosters; (3) Fear of potential side-effects; and (4) Limited value of COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Some HCWs broadly accepted the value of vaccination, and believed that boosters were necessary to effectively combat emergent new virus strains, which contrasted with peers who believed that boosters offered little defence against virus mutations. Fear prohibited some HCWs from getting the booster, with some having experienced adverse side effects from their initial vaccination, whilst others were concerned about future complications. Waning booster uptake rates could be arrested through invigorated communication strategies, while effective evidence-based training can potentially create positive normative vaccination practices amongst HCWs.

Identifiers

PMID37983237
PMCPMC10659170
OpenAlexW4388835258

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.