COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Algerian medical students: a cross-sectional study in five universities

  1. Mohamed Amine Kerdoun
  2. Abdellah Hamza Henni
  3. Assia Yamoun
  4. Amine Rahmani
  5. Rym Messaouda Kerdoun
  6. Nazia Elouar

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy is a limiting factor in global efforts to contain the current pandemic, wreaking havoc on public health. As today’s students are tomorrow’s doctors, it is critical to understand their attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine. To our knowledge, this study was the first national one to look into the attitudes of Algerian medical students toward the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine using an electronic convenience survey.

383 medical students from five Algerian universities were included, with a mean age of 21.02. 85.37% (n=327) of respondents had not taken the COVID-19 vaccine yet and were divided into three groups; the vaccine acceptance group (n=175, 53.51%), the vaccine-hesitant group (n=75, 22.93%), and the vaccine refusal group (n=77, 23.54%).

Gender, age, education level, university, and previous experience with COVID-19 were not significant predictors for vaccine acceptance. The confirmed barriers to the COVID-19 vaccine concern available information, effectiveness, safety, and adverse effects.

This work highlights the need for an educational strategy about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. Medical students should be educated about the benefits of vaccination for themselves and their families and friends.

The Vaccine acceptant students’ influence should not be neglected with a possible ambassador role to hesitant and resistant students.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.29.21261803: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis of data: Data were extracted from the form to an Excel sheet and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS software version 23.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.29.21261803v1 on medRxiv