Observational studyPloS one2025
Investigating the point prevalence, types, severity, causes and predictors of vaccines administration errors during COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a paucity of research regarding COVID-19 vaccines administration errors (VAEs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, types, severity, causes and predictors of VAEs in Jordan during the recent pandemic.
methodThis was a 3-day (Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday of the third week of November 2021) prospective, covert observational point prevalence study. It involved direct observation of vaccination administration practices by covert observers who recorded data on a standardized form, documenting the administration process, observed errors, and contextual factors, such as workload, distractions, and interruptions directly after each observation. Univariate and multivariable logistic models were constructed in order to identify predictors of VAEs.
resultsThe point prevalence of VAEs was 2.4% (209 errors / 8743 vaccine doses). These VAEs were categorized into six types: timing (interval) error (69, 33.0%) dosing error (60, 28.7%), incorrect vaccine product (42, 20.1%), site/route error (17, 8.1%), documentation error (15, 7.2%), and other (6, 2.9%). Most errors were minor (133, 63.6%) and moderate (63, 30.1%). There were 174 (54.9%) healthcare provider-related contributing factors and 102 (32.2%) patient-related factors. Receiving the vaccine in the Southern region compared to Capital region (aOR: 1.92; 95% confidence intervals, 95%CI: 1.41-2.49; p = 0.001) and receiving the vaccine during peak hours compared to regular hours (aOR: 2.18; 95%CI: 1.58-3.86; p = 0.002) were significant predictors of VAEs.
conclusionThough infrequent, VAEs had prevalence higher than previously reported in the literature, posing serious public health challenges, which might have compromised immunization efficacy and patient safety. Identifying these errors' causes and formulating strategies to reduce them is crucial for enhancing vaccination results.
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.