ArticlePloS one2024
Translation and trans-cultural adaptation to the Malay version of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy questionnaire among healthcare workers in Malaysia.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare workers play a crucial role in supporting COVID-19 vaccination as they are the most trusted source of information to the public population. Assessing the healthcare workers' hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination is pertinent, however, there are limited validated tools to measure their hesitancy on COVID-19 vaccines. This study aims to adapt and validate the first COVID-19 hesitancy scale among healthcare workers in Malaysia. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study adapted and translated the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) developed by the WHO SAGE Working Group. The scale underwent a sequential validation process, including back-back translation, content, face, and construct validity for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The reliability was tested using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE)).
resultsThe data for EFA and CFA were completed by a separate sample of 125 and 300 HCWs, respectively. The EFA analysis of the C19-VHS-M scale was unidimensional with 10 items. A further CFA analysis revealed a uniform set of nine items with acceptable goodness fit indices (comparative fit index = 0.997, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.995, incremental fit index = 0.997, chi-squared/degree of freedom = 1.352, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.034). The Cronbach's alpha, CR and AVE results were 0.953, 0.95 and 0.70, respectively.
conclusionsThe questionnaire was valid and reliable for use in the Malay language.
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.