印度影响犹豫不决和拒绝接受疫苗的因素:使用世界卫生组织 SAGE 工作组开发的工具进行的研究

Mohamed Bilal Moosa, Devayani Josh, Reshma Bobby, Besty Biju, J. Sebastian, Sheba Baby John, M. Ravi
{"title":"印度影响犹豫不决和拒绝接受疫苗的因素:使用世界卫生组织 SAGE 工作组开发的工具进行的研究","authors":"Mohamed Bilal Moosa, Devayani Josh, Reshma Bobby, Besty Biju, J. Sebastian, Sheba Baby John, M. Ravi","doi":"10.24294/ti.v8.i1.3310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study aimed to assess the hesitancy towards vaccination and to identify the factors and predictor variables within the study population. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study conducted via a web-based platform where a validated questionnaire was circulated among the public to understand their hesitancy towards vaccination. WHO SAGE Working Group Questionnaire was used to collect the data. The predictors for hesitancy were determined by using bivariate logistic regression analysis and the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was identified. Results: A total of 353 subjects enrolled in the study during the 6 months of the study. Among them, 133 (37.67%) subjects showed vaccine hesitancy. On performing the bi-variate analysis, it was found that among the subsets studies those who were more hesitant to receive vaccines were females (OR: 1.476); individuals who are widowed/separated/divorced (OR: 3.109), age 40–49 yrs (OR: 3.710); from a rural (OR: 1.277) and not graduated (OR: 1.077). These subsets were predictors identified for vaccine hesitancy. Among the vaccines, maximum hesitancy was observed for the chicken pox vaccine [47 (13.31%)], followed by TCV [25 (7.08%)] and Rota [24 (6.79%), whereas the minimum hesitancy was observed for BCG [2 (0.56%)], OPV [4 (1.13%)] and IPV [8 (2.26%)]. Reasons provided for the hesitancy observed were mainly (i) Did not think it was needed [163 (46.17%)], (ii) Did not think the vaccine was safe [41 (11.61%)] and (iii) Did not know where to get vaccinated [24 (6.79%)]. Conclusion: The study observed less vaccine hesitancy among vaccines included in the EPI program. A major contributing factor for VH among the study population was their wrong perception about vaccines as that is not needed and not safe. Hence, there is a real need for education to the population to improve vaccine confidence among the general population.","PeriodicalId":504215,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Immunotherapy","volume":"14 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing the hesitancy and refusal of vaccines in India: A study-using tool developed by WHO SAGE Working Group\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Bilal Moosa, Devayani Josh, Reshma Bobby, Besty Biju, J. Sebastian, Sheba Baby John, M. Ravi\",\"doi\":\"10.24294/ti.v8.i1.3310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: This study aimed to assess the hesitancy towards vaccination and to identify the factors and predictor variables within the study population. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study conducted via a web-based platform where a validated questionnaire was circulated among the public to understand their hesitancy towards vaccination. WHO SAGE Working Group Questionnaire was used to collect the data. The predictors for hesitancy were determined by using bivariate logistic regression analysis and the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was identified. Results: A total of 353 subjects enrolled in the study during the 6 months of the study. Among them, 133 (37.67%) subjects showed vaccine hesitancy. On performing the bi-variate analysis, it was found that among the subsets studies those who were more hesitant to receive vaccines were females (OR: 1.476); individuals who are widowed/separated/divorced (OR: 3.109), age 40–49 yrs (OR: 3.710); from a rural (OR: 1.277) and not graduated (OR: 1.077). These subsets were predictors identified for vaccine hesitancy. Among the vaccines, maximum hesitancy was observed for the chicken pox vaccine [47 (13.31%)], followed by TCV [25 (7.08%)] and Rota [24 (6.79%), whereas the minimum hesitancy was observed for BCG [2 (0.56%)], OPV [4 (1.13%)] and IPV [8 (2.26%)]. Reasons provided for the hesitancy observed were mainly (i) Did not think it was needed [163 (46.17%)], (ii) Did not think the vaccine was safe [41 (11.61%)] and (iii) Did not know where to get vaccinated [24 (6.79%)]. Conclusion: The study observed less vaccine hesitancy among vaccines included in the EPI program. A major contributing factor for VH among the study population was their wrong perception about vaccines as that is not needed and not safe. Hence, there is a real need for education to the population to improve vaccine confidence among the general population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Immunotherapy\",\"volume\":\"14 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Immunotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24294/ti.v8.i1.3310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Immunotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24294/ti.v8.i1.3310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在评估对接种疫苗的犹豫态度,并确定研究人群中的因素和预测变量。研究方法这是一项通过网络平台进行的横断面研究,在公众中分发了一份经过验证的调查问卷,以了解他们对接种疫苗的犹豫态度。采用世界卫生组织 SAGE 工作组问卷收集数据。通过双变量逻辑回归分析确定了犹豫不决的预测因素,并确定了疫苗接种犹豫不决的普遍程度。结果在 6 个月的研究期间,共有 353 名受试者参加了研究。其中,133 名受试者(37.67%)表现出疫苗接种犹豫。在进行双变量分析时发现,在研究的子集中,对接种疫苗更犹豫不决的人包括女性(OR:1.476)、丧偶/分居/离异者(OR:3.109)、40-49 岁(OR:3.710)、来自农村(OR:1.277)和未毕业(OR:1.077)。这些子群是疫苗接种犹豫的预测因素。在各种疫苗中,水痘疫苗的犹豫率最高[47(13.31%)],其次是TCV[25(7.08%)]和Rota[24(6.79%)],而卡介苗[2(0.56%)]、OPV[4(1.13%)]和IPV[8(2.26%)]的犹豫率最低。犹豫不决的原因主要是:(i) 认为不需要接种[163 人(46.17%)],(ii) 认为疫苗不安全[41 人(11.61%)],(iii) 不知道去哪里接种[24 人(6.79%)]。结论本研究发现,在扩大免疫方案所包括的疫苗中,犹豫接种的情况较少。研究人群中出现 VH 的一个主要原因是他们对疫苗的错误认识,认为疫苗不需要也不安全。因此,确实有必要对民众进行教育,以提高普通民众对疫苗的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Factors influencing the hesitancy and refusal of vaccines in India: A study-using tool developed by WHO SAGE Working Group
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the hesitancy towards vaccination and to identify the factors and predictor variables within the study population. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study conducted via a web-based platform where a validated questionnaire was circulated among the public to understand their hesitancy towards vaccination. WHO SAGE Working Group Questionnaire was used to collect the data. The predictors for hesitancy were determined by using bivariate logistic regression analysis and the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was identified. Results: A total of 353 subjects enrolled in the study during the 6 months of the study. Among them, 133 (37.67%) subjects showed vaccine hesitancy. On performing the bi-variate analysis, it was found that among the subsets studies those who were more hesitant to receive vaccines were females (OR: 1.476); individuals who are widowed/separated/divorced (OR: 3.109), age 40–49 yrs (OR: 3.710); from a rural (OR: 1.277) and not graduated (OR: 1.077). These subsets were predictors identified for vaccine hesitancy. Among the vaccines, maximum hesitancy was observed for the chicken pox vaccine [47 (13.31%)], followed by TCV [25 (7.08%)] and Rota [24 (6.79%), whereas the minimum hesitancy was observed for BCG [2 (0.56%)], OPV [4 (1.13%)] and IPV [8 (2.26%)]. Reasons provided for the hesitancy observed were mainly (i) Did not think it was needed [163 (46.17%)], (ii) Did not think the vaccine was safe [41 (11.61%)] and (iii) Did not know where to get vaccinated [24 (6.79%)]. Conclusion: The study observed less vaccine hesitancy among vaccines included in the EPI program. A major contributing factor for VH among the study population was their wrong perception about vaccines as that is not needed and not safe. Hence, there is a real need for education to the population to improve vaccine confidence among the general population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A critical review of the prospects and challenges of Hepatitis B therapeutic vaccines Role of blood hepcidin alteration as a biomarker in β-thalassemia patients’ diagnosis Factors influencing the hesitancy and refusal of vaccines in India: A study-using tool developed by WHO SAGE Working Group
×
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