ArticleBMC psychology2025
The relationships among psychosocial impact, professional type, and vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) faced significant mental health challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored the associations between vaccine hesitancy, pandemic-related social influences, and coping strategies, and examined differences across HCW professions.
methodsWe analyzed data collected via paper-based questionnaires between October 2022 and March 2023, during the third wave of COVID-19 in Taiwan. Cross-sectional surveys were administered to HCWs to gather data on vaccine attitudes, perceived social influences, and professional categories. Vaccine attitudes and social influence variables were assessed using the Vaccination Attitudes Examination and the Societal Influences Survey Questionnaire, respectively. Correlation analyses and multiple regression were conducted to identify factors associated with vaccine attitudes and to examine differences in vaccine hesitancy across various HCW professions.
resultsBased on data from a total of 730 HCWs, the participants had a mean age of 36.93 years (SD = 11.01), with 72.2% identifying as female. Their professional roles included physicians (n = 32, 4.4%), nursing staff (n = 320, 43.8%), allied health professionals (n = 71, 9.7%), and administrative personnel (n = 307, 42.1%). The findings indicated that those with higher levels of social anxiety were significantly more likely to exhibit vaccine hesitancy (β = 1.13, p < .001), whereas those with greater social desirability, defined as adherence to and confidence in COVID-19 prevention policies, were significantly less likely to be hesitant (β = -1.20, p < .001); in addition, compared with physicians, nursing staff (β = 6.27, p < .001), allied health professionals (β = 4.15, p < .024), and administrative staff (β = 5.31, p = .002) demonstrated significantly higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. Social information was not significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy (β = -0.37, p = .148).
conclusionsThis study examined how the psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. Key factors such as social anxiety, social desirability, and professional role were associated with vaccine acceptance. The results of this study indicate that strategies such as offering incentives, boosting job security, and strengthening trust in public health policies may help reduce vaccine hesitancy among HCWs.
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.