Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine in Pakistan among health care workers

  1. Asmara Malik
  2. Jahanzeb Malik
  3. Uzma Ishaq

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine will impart a pivotal role in eradicating the virus. In Pakistan, health care workers (HCWs) are the first group to receive vaccination. This survey aimed at the level of acceptance to the COVID-19 vaccine and predictors of non-acceptance in HCWs.

Method

This was a cross-sectional study design and data were collected through 3rd December 2020 and February 14th, 2021. An English questionnaire was distributed through social media platforms and administration of affiliate hospitals along with snowball sampling for private hospitals.

Results

Out of 5,237 responses, 3,679 (70.2%) accepted COVID-19 vaccination and 1,284 (24.5%) wanted to delay until more data was available. Only 5.2% of HCWs rejected being vaccinated. Vaccine acceptance was more in young (76%) and female gender (63.3%) who worked in a tertiary care hospital (51.2%) and were direct patient care providers (61.3%). The reason for rejection in females was doubtful vaccine effectiveness (31.48%) while males rejected due to prior COVID-19 exposure (42.19%) and side effect profile of the vaccine (33.17%). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated age between 51–60 years, female gender, Pashtuns, those working in the specialty of medicine and allied, taking direct care of COVID-19 patients, higher education, and prior COVID-19 infection as the predictors for acceptance or rejection of COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this survey suggests that early on in a vaccination drive, majority of the HCWs in Pakistan are willing to be vaccinated and only a small number of participants would actually reject being vaccinated.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0257237
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252271v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252271: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: The Foundation University Ethical Review Committee approved the study design (Number: FFH/51/DCA/2020).
    Consent: Informed consent was taken before final form submission and all adults (age ≥ 18 years) working as HCW were considered eligible 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
    Statistical analysis: For analysis of the data, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA.) was used and logistic regression was employed to determine the predictors of HCWs acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine.
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, there were some limitations to this study. A snowball sampling method could have created a selection and social desirability bias among HCWs. Furthermore, English questionnaire can produce a selection bias towards English-literate HCWs, particularly those active on social media. Despite these limitations, an overall positive response to vaccine acceptability is a positive sign towards attaining herd immunity worldwide, and increasing information and health communication from healthcare workers to the general population will decrease hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252271v1 on medRxiv