ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
How did Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands decide with regard to their COVID-19 vaccine uptake? An exploratory qualitative study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Netherlands, a low COVID-19 vaccination uptake was reported among Moroccan immigrants. This population also faced a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, as well as severe morbidity and mortality, compared to native Dutch. We aimed to explore the COVID-19 vaccination decision-making process and the process from vaccination intention to uptake among Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands.
methodsBetween April and June 2022, an exploratory qualitative study was performed among Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands (n = 29). Participants were recruited through community centres, mosques, and social media. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.
resultsSeven themes were generated: (1) Attitudes shifted over time and the vaccination decision was postponed, (2) A personal multi-faceted risk-benefit assessment, rather than feelings of social responsibility, resulted in a decision to vaccinate or not, (3) Feelings of decisional or anticipated regret that accompanied the personal risk-benefit assessment influenced the vaccination decision, (4) Used information sources, (5) A perceived lack of trustworthiness of the information disclosed by the government and media had a direct or indirect negative influence on the decision-making process, (6) The social environment and its norms as support or burden in the decision-making process, and (7) Religious beliefs and values holding back and encouraging in the decision-making process.
conclusionsMany participants described the COVID-19 vaccination decision as a personal risk-benefit assessment, rather than a social responsibility. Many participants experienced lack of transparency of information from the government and the media, inhibiting them from making a good decision. We recommend providing clear and transparent information that explains possible contradictions and acknowledges uncertainties and potential adverse effects. Religious beliefs and values, and the strong influence of children and parents in making the vaccination decision should also be carefully considered in communication strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.