ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Exploring healthcare workers' perspectives: A comprehensive mixed-method investigation of knowledge, belief, and perceptions towards COVID-19 vaccination in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led governments worldwide to priorities vaccine development and distribution. However, vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) posed a significant challenge. This study aimed to explore the HCWs' knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in Madhya Pradesh, India, using a mixed-method approach. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to collect data from 519 HCWs. Quantitative data were obtained through stratified random sampling via face-to-face or online surveys, while qualitative insights were gathered through purposive sampling for in-depth interviews. Results: The sample primarily consisted of nurses (95%), with roles as vaccinators (86.3%) and coordinators (11%). A large proportion (75.5%) were directly involved in patient care during the pandemic, and 31.6% had previously been diagnosed with COVID-19. Most participants expressed confidence in the vaccine's effectiveness (65.5%) and immunity (71.8%), though 21.6% were skeptical of its necessity and 16% had concerns about its safety. Views on vaccine prioritization and post-vaccination risks varied. Despite these differences, participants generally expressed satisfaction with the vaccination programmed, highlighting the need for transparent communication and addressing safety concerns. Qualitative data revealed the importance of trust in scientific research, professional responsibility, peer influence, and logistical challenges in shaping vaccine attitudes. Conclusion: The findings emphasize the need for targeted communication strategies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. By considering these complexities, policymakers can develop interventions to increase vaccine uptake and strengthen frontline defenses against future pandemics.
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.