Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373020›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2024

Perspectives on the COVID-19 Vaccination Rollout in 17 Countries: Reflexive Thematic and Frequency Analysis Based on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Framework.

Vanja Kopilaš, Khrystyna Nasadiuk, Lucia Martinelli, Lenka Lhotska, Zoran Todorovic, Matjaz Vidmar, Helena Machado, Anna Lydia Svalastog, Srećko Gajović

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Vanja Kopilaš *Department of Psychology, Faculty of Croatian Studies, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-8614-9505
Khrystyna Nasadiuk *Department of Biochemistry, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0002-9837-9084
Lucia MartinelliScience in Society Program, MUSE-Science Museum, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9943-8437
Lenka LhotskaCzech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-0742-5645
Zoran TodorovicUniversity Hospital Medical Center "Bežanijska kosa", Belgrade, .ORCID 0000-0001-8869-9976
Matjaz VidmarInstitute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1368-9762
Helena MachadoInstitute for Social Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8554-7619
Anna Lydia SvalastogØstfold University College, Halden, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-8869
Srećko GajovićBIMIS-Biomedical Research Center Šalata, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-8668-5239

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the SARS-CoV-2 virus created a global pandemic and rapidly became an imminent threat to the health and lives of people worldwide, the need for a vaccine and its quick distribution among the population was evident. Due to the urgency, and on the back of international collaboration, vaccines were developed rapidly. However, vaccination rollouts showed different success rates in different countries and some also led to increased vaccine hesitancy.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify the role of information sharing and context sensitivity in various vaccination programs throughout the initial COVID-19 vaccination rollout in different countries. Moreover, we aimed to identify factors in national vaccination programs related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, safety, and effectiveness. Toward this end, multidisciplinary and multinational opinions from members of the Navigating Knowledge Landscape (NKL) network were analyzed.

methodsFrom May to July 2021, 25 completed questionnaires from 27 NKL network members were collected. These contributors were from 17 different countries. The responses reflected the contributors' subjective viewpoints on the status and details of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in their countries. Contributors were asked to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (ie, SWOT) of the respective vaccination programs. The responses were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, followed by frequency analysis of identified themes according to the represented countries.

resultsThe perspectives of NKL network members showed a link between organizational elements of the vaccination rollout and the accompanying societal response, both of which were related to strengths and weaknesses of the process. External sociocultural variables, improved public communication around vaccination-related issues, ethical controversies, and the spread of disinformation were the dominant themes related to opportunities and challenges. In the SWOT 2×2 matrix, Availability and Barriers emerged as internal categories, whereas Transparent communication and promotion and Societal divide emerged as key external categories.

conclusionsInventory of themes and categories inspired by elements of the SWOT framework provides an informative multidisciplinary perspective for effective implementation of public health strategies in the battle against COVID-19 or any future pandemics of a similar nature.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCommunicationHumansSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinescommunicationCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccinationdisinformationeffectivenesshesitancyimplementationpandemicsafetySARS-CoV-2 virussocioculturaltoolvaccinationvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID38373020
PMCPMC10896317

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.