ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2025
Identification of Community Vaccine Hesitancy: A Descriptive-Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy has become one of the ten global health challenges to be addressed, given its increasing global prevalence. Aim: This study aimed to identify community vaccine hesitancy and the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy in a provincial center. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional research was conducted with 215 adults seeking care at a family health center for any reason. The data collection instruments included the Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire and the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. Determinants of vaccine hesitancy were examined through multiple regression analysis (enter model). The STROBE (cross-sectional research model) guidelines were employed for reporting research data. Results: Among participants, 35.3% had a bachelor's degree or higher, 62.3% were employed, and 76.7% had children. 71.2% of the participants had not received education about vaccines, with only 45.6% considering all vaccines necessary and beneficial. Additionally, 16.2% of the participants with children were identified as having under-vaccinated children. Belief in the necessity and benefits of all vaccines (ß = -0.245, 95% CI: -4.715 to -1.453), belief in making vaccination mandatory (ß = -0.137, 95% CI: -4.873 to -0.083), receiving the COVID-19 vaccine (ß = -0.169, 95% CI: -5.925 to -0.947), and receiving the flu vaccine (ß = -0.158, 95% CI: -3.828 to -0.429) were determined to be protective against vaccine hesitancy. These variables explained 24.3% of vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions: The assessment revealed that the community exhibited moderate vaccine hesitancy and did not perceive all vaccines as necessary and beneficial. Considering the impact of vaccines on preventing infectious diseases, reducing disabilities, and preventing deaths, it is recommended to provide information about the seriousness of the diseases prevented by vaccines and the importance of vaccines.
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.