COVID-19 Vaccine Attitude and Its Predictors Among People Living With Chronic Health Conditions in Ibadan, Nigeria

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Objective: To assess vaccination attitude and its associated factors among people with chronic health conditions.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants were 423 patients with chronic medical conditions. Data were collected on socio-demographic and COVID-19-related characteristics, via Open Data Kit software. A Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale was adopted. The main outcome was vaccine attitude status defined as positive if a VAX sum score was above the median value; otherwise, non-positive. Data were analysed using Chi-square and multivariate logistic regression analyses, at 5% level of significance.

Results: Overall proportion of patients with a positive attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination uptake was 46.6%. The most influential factor towards positive attitude was rating the government high in handling the pandemic. Other factors were education, income, COVID-19 knowledge and living room arrangement ( p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Less than half of people living with a chronic medical condition had a positive attitude towards the COVID-19 vaccine. The attitudes are strongly mediated by confidence in the government. The government could promote a positive vaccine attitude by improving the clarity of health instructions that shows government transparency and effective communication. These are critical tools for maintaining public trust and confidence.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.27.22269947: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Patient who selected a “yes” was enrolled into the study after written informed consent was obtained, while excluding patient who was very ill and cognitively impaired.
    IRB: Ethical Approval: The University of Ibadan/University College Hospital Institutional Review Committee approved the survey protocol with approval number UI/EC/21/0065.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationAt every clinic visit, eligible consenting participants were selected using a simple random sampling (balloting approach).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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.