COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a mixed-method study

  1. Nebiyu Dereje
  2. Abigel Tesfaye
  3. Beamlak Tamene
  4. Dina Alemeshet
  5. Haymanot Abe
  6. Nathnael Tesfa
  7. Saron Gideon
  8. Tigist Biruk
  9. Yabets Lakew

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Data on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is limited in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the level of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Design

A community-based concurrent mixed-method study.

Setting

In a community setting.

Participants

Adult residents (n=422) of Akaki Kality subcity who were recruited by a two stage sampling technique and 24 adults who were selected purposively were included for the quantitative and qualitative part of the study respectively.

Outcome measures

Data were collected by face-to-face interview using a semistructured questionnaire. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified by multivariable binary logistic regression model.

Results

One out five (19.1%, 95% CI 15.3% to 24.6%) participants were not willing to get vaccinated. In the multivariable analysis, vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with being female (aOR=1.97; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.89), having negative attitude towards COVID-19 and its preventive measures (aOR=1.75; 95% CI 1.08 to 3.02), and primary information source being social media (internet) (aOR=3.59; 95% CI 1.75 to 7.37). Study participants have predominantly stated that they did not have enough information about the vaccine, feared it would not be effective or have too many side effects, and reflected their uncertainty towards the quality of the vaccine.

Conclusions

A considerable proportion of the people in Addis Ababa have concerns on COVID-19 vaccines and unwilling to accept them. This was due to the misconceptions, negative attitudes and use of social media as their primary source of information. Providing the community with health education and consistent efforts to enhance the prevention measures are important, particularly using different medias including social media.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052432
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.25.21252443: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical consideration: Ethical approval of this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Myungsung Medical College.
    Consent: The participants of the study was informed about the purpose of the study and provided their written consent.
    RandomizationThere were 13 districts in the sub-city; of which three of them were selected randomly (lottery method).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    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.
    • 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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.25.21252443v1 on medRxiv