ArticleBMJ open2025
Ethics and dilemmas regarding acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among people living in an Indian metropolitan city during the pandemic: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore public perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in India, and to identify underlying factors influencing attitudes toward vaccination during the second wave of the pandemic.
designA cross-sectional qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach.
settingCommunity-based interviews conducted in Mumbai, a densely populated metropolitan city in India, during the second COVID-19 wave (April-June 2021).
participantsTwenty purposively selected adults (men and women aged 22-87 years) from varied educational and occupational backgrounds. Inclusion criteria were willingness to participate and the ability to provide informed consent; individuals directly involved in COVID-19 vaccine policy or administration were excluded.
methodsIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide exploring perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively following grounded theory principles. Reflexivity was maintained throughout data collection and analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Key emergent themes relating to vaccine acceptance, hesitancy and influencing factors such as safety concerns, efficacy perceptions, media influence and social determinants of vaccine choice.
resultsAttitudes toward vaccination ranged from strong acceptance to hesitancy driven by concerns about safety, side effects and the speed of vaccine development. Media coverage, peer and healthcare professional opinions, and personal experiences shaped the decision of the participants. Cost considerations and lack of vaccine choice influenced uptake. Many participants favoured vaccination being voluntary rather than mandatory for the general population.
conclusionTrust in authorities, transparent risk communication and culturally sensitive engagement are critical to improving vaccine confidence. Public health strategies should address safety concerns, ensure equitable access and promote consistent messaging to enhance vaccine acceptance in current and future pandemic contexts.
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.