Acceptance of COVID 19 vaccine among sub-Sahara African (SSA): a comparative study of residents and diaspora dwellers

  1. Chundung Asabe Miner
  2. Chikasirimobi G. Timothy
  3. Khathutshelo Percy Mashige
  4. Uchechukwu Levi Osuagwu
  5. Esther Awazzi Envuladu
  6. Onyekachukwu Mary-Anne Amiebenomo
  7. Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo
  8. Deborah Donald Charwe
  9. Piwuna Christopher Goson
  10. Bernadine N Ekpenyong
  11. Emmanuel Kwasi Abu
  12. Raymond Langsi
  13. Richard Oloruntoba
  14. Tanko Ishaya
  15. Kingsley Agho

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out across all the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, with countries setting targets for achieving full vaccination rates. The aim of this study was to compare the uptake of, resistance and hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine between SSA locally residents and in the diaspora. This was a cross-sectional study conducted using a web and paper-based questionnaire to obtain relevant information on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The survey items included questions on demography, uptake and planned acceptance or non-acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines among SSAs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine probabilities of outcomes for factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination resistance and hesitancy among SSA respondents residing within and outside Africa. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines varied among the local (14.2%) and diaspora (25.3%) residents. There was more resistance to COVID-19 vaccine among locals (68.1%) and across the sociodemographic variables of sex [ adjusted Relative Risk (ARR) =0.73, 95% CI; 0.58 – 0.93], primary/less [ARR =0.22, 95% CI; 0.12 – 0.40] and bachelor’s degree [ARR =0.58, 95% CI; 0.43 – 0.77] educational levels, occupation [ARR =0.32, 95% CI; 0.25 - 0.40] and working status [ARR =1.40, 95%CI; 1.06 - 1.84]. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was almost similar between locals and diasporas (17.7% and 17.8% respectively) significant only among healthcare workers [ARR =0.46, 95% CI; 0.16 – 1.35] in the diaspora after adjusting for the variables. Similarly, knowledge and perception of COVID-19 vaccine among locals were substantial, but only perception was remarkable to resistance [ARR =0.86, 95% CI; 0.82 – 0.90] and hesitancy [ARR =0.85, 95% CI; 0.80 – 0.90] of the vaccine. Differences exist in the factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between local SSA residents and those in the diaspora. Knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines affects the uptake, resistance, and hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine. Information campaigns focusing on the efficacy and safety of vaccines could lead to improved acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.16.22272510: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analysis: Data were analyzed using STATA/MP version 14 (Stata Corp 2015, College Station, TX, USA.
    STATA/MP
    suggested: None

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations: This is the first large scale study to compare acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines between sub-Saharan African local residents and those in the diaspora. The study employed robust analyses to control for potential confounders to reduce the possibility of a bias. The distribution of the questionnaire in both English and French languages using an internet-based methodology, which was the only reliable means to disseminate information at the time of this study to a wider audience. Notwithstanding these strengths, the study has some limitations. For example, the study did not explore concerns about vaccine safety which may be an important determinant of vaccine hesitancy. The cross-sectional nature of the study means that causation cannot be determined. The survey was distributed electronically using social media platforms and emails, and this may have inadvertently excluded some potential participants whose opinions may have differed, such as those without internet access and people living in rural areas, where internet penetration remains relatively low.[65] The survey was presented in English and French and thus inadvertently excluding some of the Portuguese or Arabic-speaking SSA countries from participating. Although the study showed satisfactory internal validity, its generalization or transferability to all SSA countries may be limited.

    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 10.1101/2022.03.16.22272510v1 on medRxiv