Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41116926›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

The Willing-Unwilling: A Cross-Sectional Study to Explore Health Workers' Perceptions About the COVID-19 Vaccine.

Khurram Shahzad, Zaeem Ul Haq, Assad Hafeez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khurram ShahzadEpidemiology and Biostatistics, Health Services Academy, Islamabad, PAK.
Zaeem Ul HaqImmunization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Islamabad, PAK.
Assad HafeezEpidemiology and Public Health, Health Services Academy, Islamabad, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Health workers (HWs) are considered the most influential promoters of immunization. This notion, however, was challenged during COVID-19 when health workers in several countries asked for more information before supporting mass vaccination. In Pakistan, many health workers registered in the system but were delaying their vaccination during the early days. We conducted this study to assess the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine along with the reasons for delays or refusals among health workers in Pakistan.  Methods From a pool of 20,000 health workers registered to receive the vaccine, we called 500 randomly selected health workers (doctors, nurses, community health workers, pharmacists) via phone. Overwhelmed by their work during the pandemic, only 234 could complete the survey. The survey was done in the early weeks of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout (February-March 2021) to inform the policy. Results About 3/4

Indexed as

communication strategycovid-19health workertrustvaccine acceptancevaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID41116926
PMCPMC12535611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.