9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) of healthcare professionals and students in Poland: Cross-sectional survey-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a critical role in shaping their local communities' attitudes toward vaccines, HCPs' beliefs and attitudes toward vaccination are of vital importance for primary prevention strategies. The present study was designed as a cross-sectional survey-based study utilizing a self-administered questionnaire to collect data about COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) among Polish HCPs and students of medical universities (MUSs). Out of the 443 included participants, 76.3% were females, 52.6% were HCPs, 31.8% were previously infected by SARS-CoV-2, and 69.3% had already received COVID-19 vaccine booster doses (VBD). Overall, 74.5% of the participants were willing to receive COVID-19 VBD, while 7.9 and 17.6% exhibited their hesitance and rejection, respectively. The most commonly found promoter for acceptance was protection of one's health (95.2%), followed by protection of family's health (81.8%) and protection of community's health (63.3%). Inferential statistics did not show a significant association between COVID-19 VBH and demographic variables, e.g., age and gender; however, the participants who had been previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 were significantly more inclined to reject the VBD. Protection from severe infection, community transmission, good safety profile, and favorable risk-benefit ratio were the significant determinants of the COVID-19 VBD acceptance and uptake. Fear of post-vaccination side effects was one of the key barriers for accepting COVID-19 VBD, which is consistent with the pre-existing literature. Public health campaigns need to highlight the postulated benefits of vaccines and the expected harms of skipping VBD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

          (2013)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

              The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                25 July 2022
                2022
                25 July 2022
                : 10
                : 938067
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics, Medical University of Silesia , Katowice, Poland
                [2] 2Department of Diagnostics, Poznań University of Medical Sciences , Poznań, Poland
                [3] 3Doctoral School, Poznań University of Medical Sciences , Poznań, Poland
                [4] 4Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Brno, Czechia
                [5] 5Department of Microbiology and Virology, Medical University of Silesia , Sosnowiec, Poland
                [6] 6Department of Pathology, Medical University of Silesia , Sosnowiec, Poland
                [7] 7Department of Anatomy, Poznań University of Medical Sciences , Poznań, Poland
                [8] 8Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Brno, Czechia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Francesca Licata, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Italy

                Reviewed by: Atalay Mulu Fentie, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia; Gerardo S. Romo-Cardenas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico; Madhur Sachan, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, United States; Ritika Kaur, Independent researcher, Delhi, India, in collaboration with reviewer MS

                *Correspondence: Abanoub Riad abanoub.riad@ 123456med.muni.cz

                This article was submitted to Infectious Diseases–Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.938067
                9359622
                35958845
                014ede7e-14ac-49d5-8948-881d6bfae974
                Copyright © 2022 Dziedzic, Issa, Hussain, Tanasiewicz, Wojtyczka, Kubina, Konwinska and Riad.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 06 May 2022
                : 04 July 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 9, Equations: 0, References: 59, Pages: 0, Words: 9500
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                cross-sectional studies,covid-19 vaccines,decision making,healthcare professionals,vaccination hesitancy,poland

                Comments

                Comment on this article