Covid-19 vaccine perceptions in Senegal and in Mali: a mixed approach

  1. Eleonore Fournier-Tombs
  2. Massamba Diouf
  3. Abdine Maiga
  4. Sylvain Faye
  5. Tidiane Ndoye
  6. Lalla Haidara
  7. Moussa Batchily
  8. Céline Castet-Renard

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This paper presents the results of two qualitative surveys in Senegal and in Mali, which include questions about hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine between April and June 2021. It took place within a larger 2-year research project involving researchers in Senegal, Mali and Canada which examines the uses of artificial intelligence technologies in the fight against COVID-19. The study involved 1000 respondents in Senegal and 555 in Mali. The researchers found that overall, 55% of respondents in Senegal and 52% of respondents in Mali did not plan to be vaccinated. Hesitancy was much higher in youth aged 15-35 in both cases, with 70% of youth in Senegal and 57% of youth in Mali not planning to be vaccinated, compared to only 42% of elderly in Senegal and 37% of elderly in Mali. The researchers did not find disparities between male and female respondents in Senegal but found some in Mali. They also found that those who had a member of the family with chronic disease (diabetes or hypertension) were slightly more likely to want to be vaccinated. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy fell in several categories, including fear of vaccine side-effects, disbelief in vaccine efficacy or usefulness, and general distrust in the public health system.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.06.21264664: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.10.06.21264664v1 on medRxiv