ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Effectiveness of Group and Individual Counselling Interventions on COVID-19 Vaccination Intention Among Industrial Employees in Romania.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The deadly triple M (mistrust, misinformation, and missed opportunities): understanding Romania's COVID-19 vaccination campaign and its lasting impact on public health.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier to achieving widespread vaccination, particularly in settings with limited public trust and high exposure to misinformation. This study aims to measure the level of vaccine hesitancy, identifying the factors contributing to it, and to evaluate the effectiveness of two targeted interventions-group and individual counseling-designed to address vaccine hesitancy among employees in seven industrial companies in Romania during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics. Methods: A total of 256 participants were included in the study, and interventions were delivered by family physicians and occupational medicine specialists trained in motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. Data on sociodemographic factors, vaccine hesitancy, and willingness to vaccinate were collected using a questionnaire and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for vaccine willingness. Results: Both interventions led to significant increases in willingness to vaccinate, with group counseling showing a 1.4-point increase on the VAS (p-value < 0.0001) and individual counseling showing a 1.5-point increase (p-value < 0.0001), though the differences between the two approaches were not statistically significant (p-value = 0.209). Key factors correlated with higher levels of vaccine hesitancy included younger age, lower education levels, marital status (single or divorced), having children, the presence of chronic diseases, a lack of general antivaccine beliefs, and a lack of trust in the natural origin of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Conclusion: This study highlights the effectiveness of dual interventions involving family doctors and occupational medicine specialists in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among industrial workers in Romania. Key factors influencing hesitancy included demographic characteristics (age, marital status) and social determinants (education level, anti-vaccine beliefs, parenthood, and chronic illness). The findings emphasize the role of trusted healthcare professionals in addressing these concerns through targeted communication strategies, such as motivational interviewing.
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.