ArticleVaccine: X2024
Evaluation of vaccine perceptions in Israel's Elderly: A Comparative study of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination attitudes.
Article in Vaccine: X, 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.
- Chronic Diseases and Influenza Vaccines.Vaccines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of Israeli elderly population towards COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, and to assess factors contributing to these attitudes. Methods: Four-hundred and one participants exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 or influenza were enrolled and filled out a questionnaire. A second questionnaire was filled out for hospitalized patients at discharge. Nasopharyngeal samples were collected and detected for COVID-19 and influenza presence by reverse transcription PCR. Participants were divided into 3 groups according to their attitude towards vaccine- Pro-vaccine, Anti-vaccine and Dependent group, which represented participants whose stance depended on disease infection rate. Results: Out of 401 participants, 11.2% (45/401) tested positive for COVID-19, 10.5% (42/401) were positive for Influenza A and one (0.2%) patient had Influenza B. The participants expressed varied beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine: 14.7% (59/401) agreed that it causes disease, 25.4% (102/401) doubted vaccine effectiveness and 22.9% (92/401) questioned vaccine safety. A higher percentage of individuals in Pro-Vaccine group (66.3%, 179/270) as compared to Anti-Vaccine (45.3%, 24/53) and to Dependent (60.3%, 47/78) groups had a COVID-19 history. Hospitalization history was significantly more common in Pro-Vaccine (11.1%, 30/270) and Dependent groups (16.7%, 13/78) than in Anti-Vaccine group (1.9%, 1/53).Influenza vaccine effectiveness was doubted by 19.7% (79/401), 18% (72/401) participants questioned safety, and 18.7% (75/401) agreed that the vaccine causes disease. The majority of both Dependent (54.2%, 13/24) and Pro-Vaccine (56.2%, 167/297) groups believed they received sufficient information about the vaccine, while only 25% (20/80) of the Anti-Vaccine group has similar impressions. Conclusions: This analysis reveals a notable disinclination towards vaccination among some of the elderly, reflecting their deep and ingrained hesitancy. These findings emphasize the need for customized approaches to improve vaccine acceptance in this vulnerable group. Such strategies should consider the various motivations and influences shaping elderly perspectives, from individual health experiences to wider social and cultural factors.
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.