Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccination among Health Care Workers in Ghana

  1. Martin Wiredu Agyekum
  2. Grace Frempong Afrifa-Anane
  3. Frank Kyei-Arthur
  4. Bright Addo

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Because health care workers are a reliable source of health information, their acceptance or rejection of COVID-19 vaccines can influence the general population's uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. In this study, we sought to determine the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines among health care workers in Ghana. Using a cross-sectional design, we collected data from 234 health care workers through a self-administered online survey from 16 January to 15 February 2021. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed using STATA version 15. The findings revealed that 39.3% (n = 92) of health care workers intended to receive the COVID-19 vaccines. Factors such as sex (AOR = 0.451; CI 95% 0.240–0.845; p = 0.013 ), category of health care workers (AOR = 2.851; 95 CI%: 1.097–7.405; p = 0.031 ), relative being diagnosed with COVID-19 (AOR = 0.369; CI 95% 0.145–0.941; p = 0.037 ), and trust in the accuracy of the measures taken by the government in the fight against COVID-19 (AOR = 2.768; CI 95%: 1.365–5.616; p = 0.005 ) proved to be significant predictors of the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns about the safety of vaccines (n = 93, 65.5%) and the adverse side effects of the vaccines (n = 23, 14.8%) were identified as the main reasons why health care workers would decline uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana. The self-reported low intention of health care workers in Ghana to accept COVID-19 vaccines necessitates an urgent call from the Government of Ghana and other stakeholders to address health care workers' concerns about the safety and adverse side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, as this would increase vaccine uptake. Interventions must also take into consideration sex and the category of health care workers to achieve the desired results.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1155/2021/9998176
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253374: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: To be included in the study, the individual must be a health professional working in a registered health care setting and must consent and be willing to participate in the survey.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.4 Statistical Analysis: The data were analysed using STATA version 15.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253374v1 on medRxiv