Health workers motivators to uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine at Iganga Hospital Eastern Uganda, and Mengo Hospital Kampala Uganda; A qualitative study

  1. Muhamadi Lubega
  2. Edith Namulema
  3. James Waako
  4. Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye
  5. Safinah Kisu Museene
  6. Safinah Kisu Museene
  7. Stefan Swartling Peterson
  8. Anna Mia Ekström

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Uganda continues extensive mobilization and administration of the COVID 19 vaccine to its people albeit some vaccine hesitancy with in the population. Amongst the health workers however, approximately 70% had received their first dose while 40% had received their second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 respectively. These figures represent a recognizable acceptance rate among health workers. Exploring motivators to vaccine uptake among health workers is vital for the government’s general population vaccine rollout plan. We conducted 12 focus group discussions and 20 in-depth interviews with health workers (vaccinated and unvaccinated) to understand motivators to vaccine acceptance in their own perspective in central and eastern Uganda. Reported motivators to vaccine acceptance included; risk susceptibility/protection, fear of death and/or cost of treatment and experiences of COVID 1 related grief. Other were trust in the vaccine, call to government policy and vaccine success stories elsewhere, real or perceived benefits of vaccination and peer influence. We recommend intensified dissemination of health worker tailor made tools/guides for information, education and communication about the COVID 19 vaccine. The tools need to emphasize the elicited themes/motivators. We also recommend use of peers who have taken up the vaccine and survived COVID-19 or got a mild form of the disease to elicit positive peer influence about the vaccine amongst health workers. The information dissemination and peer narratives could be done through the health worker’s social media platforms, union or association websites, personal statements, editorials or other media.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.53430/ijsru.2024.7.1.0023
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.25.21265494: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: The research assistants were conversant with qualitative data collection methods, had conducted similar research in the study settings and were all fluent in Luganda and Lusoga (the local languages).
    IRB: Ethical clearance: The study was approved by the Mengo hospital Research and Ethics Committee (REC) ref MH/REC/39/06-2021, and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).
    Consent: As part of the informed consent, the participants were told about the aims of the study, the anticipated benefits and risks, their ability to participate or withdraw at any time, and assured that all information obtained would be kept confidential.
    Sex as a biological variableAll data collection was supervised and assessed by the first author LM) who is a male, indigenous public health physician and the second and second third authors (NE WJ,) both of whom are conversant with qualitative research and the health system dynamics for both Iganga and Mengo hospitals respectively.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.25.21265494v1 on medRxiv