ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
The ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations in Uganda: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 spread globally and, as of June 2023, resulted in more than 6.9 million deaths worldwide. Some studies suggested that vaccination was the most effective strategy for mitigating COVID-19. However, due to vaccine hesitancy, many people ended up shunning vaccinations. To address gaps in vaccination policy, recent legislative changes in Uganda mandated coronavirus vaccinations, highlighting the need to examine the implications of such amendments. There has not been a scientific study to explore the views of healthcare workers, bioethicists, and the general public on the ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations in Uganda.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study that employed in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study was conducted in Mulago National Referral Hospital, Makerere University, College of Health Sciences, Wandegeya, and Mulago areas. Fifteen participants were purposively selected based on their expertise for in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions. Each focus group discussion had six participants. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. The coding was both deductive and inductive. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.
resultsThe participants shared their perspective on the ethicality surrounding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. The total sample size was 39. Opinions were divided: 21 participants supported the mandates, 5 expressed reservations, and 13 opposed them. Proponents argued vaccination mandates reduced infection rates, with benefits outweighing risks. Those with reservations acknowledged the principle but cited practical concerns, controversies, and implementation gaps. Opponents saw mandates as infringing on personal autonomy.
conclusionThis inquiry into the ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations raised mixed views among the stakeholders, and implementors of vaccination programs should have put this in mind. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not Applicable.
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.