COVID‐19 booster dose vaccination of healthcare workers in Qatar: A web‐based cross‐sectional survey

Amudha Pattabi, Ananth Nazarene, Sejo Varghese, A. Nashwan, Reena Philip, Ramya Munuswamy, Kalpana Singh
{"title":"COVID‐19 booster dose vaccination of healthcare workers in Qatar: A web‐based cross‐sectional survey","authors":"Amudha Pattabi, Ananth Nazarene, Sejo Varghese, A. Nashwan, Reena Philip, Ramya Munuswamy, Kalpana Singh","doi":"10.1002/puh2.94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vaccines are an important public health measure and effective strategy to protect the population from COVID‐19. Front‐line healthcare personnel should receive priority in vaccination programs. However, the reported hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) toward the COVID‐19 vaccines cannot be ignored. It widely influences the level of vaccine hesitancy in the general population. Hesitancy, fear, and anxiety were documented in first and second rounds of COVID‐19 vaccination. This study assessed the acceptance of COVID‐19 booster doses among the HCWs in Qatar.A web‐based cross‐sectional online survey was conducted using the 7C Vaccine Readiness Scale to evaluate the preparedness of the HCWs to receive COVID‐19 vaccines. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to identify factors associated with preparedness for vaccination.A total of 382 participants completed the survey. Allied health professionals scored the least on the readiness score (−7.0 ± 9.9) compared to the physicians (3.1 ± 7.2) and nurses (3.0 ± 7.8). Physicians scored higher on confidence (58.8%), calculation (64.7%), and complacency (60.8%). Nurses scored higher on constraints (51.6%), collective responsibility (62.7%), and compliance (39.1%), and allied health professionals scored higher on (67.9%) conspiracy. There was a significant association between readiness score and not being infected with COVID‐19, post‐vaccine symptom experience, and hesitancy for the initial two doses.This study reports higher complacency and constraints with the perception of lower risks and the lack of interest in taking collective responsibility among the HCWs. Addressing vaccine hesitancy among them is critical to ensure successful vaccination campaigns and promote community safety during future pandemics.","PeriodicalId":74613,"journal":{"name":"Public health challenges","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vaccines are an important public health measure and effective strategy to protect the population from COVID‐19. Front‐line healthcare personnel should receive priority in vaccination programs. However, the reported hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) toward the COVID‐19 vaccines cannot be ignored. It widely influences the level of vaccine hesitancy in the general population. Hesitancy, fear, and anxiety were documented in first and second rounds of COVID‐19 vaccination. This study assessed the acceptance of COVID‐19 booster doses among the HCWs in Qatar.A web‐based cross‐sectional online survey was conducted using the 7C Vaccine Readiness Scale to evaluate the preparedness of the HCWs to receive COVID‐19 vaccines. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to identify factors associated with preparedness for vaccination.A total of 382 participants completed the survey. Allied health professionals scored the least on the readiness score (−7.0 ± 9.9) compared to the physicians (3.1 ± 7.2) and nurses (3.0 ± 7.8). Physicians scored higher on confidence (58.8%), calculation (64.7%), and complacency (60.8%). Nurses scored higher on constraints (51.6%), collective responsibility (62.7%), and compliance (39.1%), and allied health professionals scored higher on (67.9%) conspiracy. There was a significant association between readiness score and not being infected with COVID‐19, post‐vaccine symptom experience, and hesitancy for the initial two doses.This study reports higher complacency and constraints with the perception of lower risks and the lack of interest in taking collective responsibility among the HCWs. Addressing vaccine hesitancy among them is critical to ensure successful vaccination campaigns and promote community safety during future pandemics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卡塔尔卫生保健工作者的COVID - 19加强剂量疫苗接种:基于网络的横断面调查
疫苗是保护人群免受COVID - 19感染的重要公共卫生措施和有效策略。一线卫生保健人员应优先接种疫苗。然而,据报道,卫生保健工作者(HCWs)对COVID - 19疫苗的犹豫不容忽视。它广泛影响一般人群对疫苗的犹豫程度。在第一轮和第二轮COVID - 19疫苗接种中记录了犹豫、恐惧和焦虑。本研究评估了卡塔尔卫生保健工作者对COVID - 19加强剂的接受程度。使用7C疫苗准备程度量表进行了一项基于网络的横断面在线调查,以评估卫生保健工作者接种COVID - 19疫苗的准备情况。使用描述性和推断性统计来确定与疫苗接种准备相关的因素。共有382名参与者完成了调查。专职卫生专业人员的准备度得分为- 7.0±9.9分,低于内科医生(3.1±7.2分)和护士(3.0±7.8分)。医生在信心(58.8%)、计算(64.7%)和自满(60.8%)方面得分较高。护士在约束(51.6%)、集体责任(62.7%)和依从性(39.1%)方面得分较高,联合医疗专业人员在阴谋(67.9%)方面得分较高。准备程度评分与未感染COVID - 19、疫苗后症状经历和最初两次剂量的犹豫之间存在显著关联。本研究报告指出,卫生保健工作人员对较低风险的认知和对承担集体责任缺乏兴趣的自满情绪和约束情绪较高。解决他们之间的疫苗犹豫问题对于确保疫苗接种运动取得成功和在未来大流行期间促进社区安全至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Taxation Plan in Indonesia: Call for Political Commitment Prevention and Management of Multimorbidity in Southeast Asia: A Narrative Review Contraceptive Counselling and Uptake Among Female Kidney Transplant Recipients in Ethiopia Dietary Diversity and Nutritional Status Among Rwandan Women Engaged in Agriculture: A Cross‐Sectional Study Improving Sustainable Financing for Universal Health Coverage in Bhutan: Exploring Policy Options and Financial Strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1