Perception and Behavioural Outcome towards COVID-19 Vaccine among Students and Faculties of Nursing Colleges at Gujarat
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction: Perception and behaviour towards corona vaccine among peoples in India was poor due to some side effects and negative media publicity in primary phases of vaccination. India has developed two types of vaccine (Covaxin and Covishield). During primary phase of corona vaccine we don’t have appropriate research and literature, about side effects and how far vaccine is reliable that why due so some minor side effect and negative media publicity peoples are very scared to take vaccine. So few peoples were started denial get vaccinated. The researcher wan to explore the positivity through the research result to reduce the negative mindset of the peoples toward corona vaccine, Because in India few peoples has fear to take vaccine against corona due to negative media publicity and scared of side effect. Objective: To assess the existing level of perception and behaviour toward COVID-19 vaccine and to find out the association between selected socio-demographic variables. Methods: Descriptive cross sectional survey research design was used and non-probability (snowball) sampling method was used to drawn samples through online Google form, all questions were plots on Google form and inform consent form also has been taken online prior to data collection from the samples. Prior to data collection written setting permission obtain from nursing colleges principals, for the data collection researcher were selected total 03 nursing institutes. The total sample size was 254 nursing college students and faculties. The tool consist of following Section-01 Demographic variables, section-02 Nursing students and faculties information related to COVID-19 vaccination during 1st and 2nd dose and Section-3 Questions related to perception and behaviour towards COVID-19 vaccine. Descriptive statistics applied where, data were analyzed by using SPSS software, and Frequency, percentage, tables etc. were used to represent the statistical data in the tables. Chi-square test was used to assess the significant association between the demographic and level of perception to test the hypothesis. Results: Out of 254, 245(96.45%) were belong age 18-25 years, 8(3.14%) were belong to 26-35, 1 (0.34%) was belong to 46-60 age group. 219(86.22%) were females, 53(20.87%) were study Diploma course and 178(70.08%) were study degree course, regarding religion 223(87.79%) were Hindu, 5(1.97%) were Muslim and 26(10.24%) were Christian, Marital status 227(89.37%) were Unmarried and 24(9.47%) were Married, 134(52.75%) were from urban area, and rest 120 (47.24%) belongs to Rural area. Sources of information about COVID 19 vaccine 109(42.92%) got from online media, 44(17.32%) from television, 243(95.67%) received free of cost corona vaccine, 199(78.35%) mindset was not influenced by negative media publicity about vaccine, 248(97.63%) do not have any co-morbidities. 219(86.22%) taken Covid-19 vaccine empty stomach. 221(87%) of samples were taken willingly vaccine, 205(80.71%) of samples were received Covishield vaccine and others 49(19.29%) were taken Covaxin, 109(42.91%) samples noticed mild fever, 53(20.87%) samples noticed moderate fever, 18(7.08%) noticed severe fever and rest 74(29.13%) didn’t noticed fever. Conclusions Regarding perception and behaviour towards COVID-19 vaccine, the majority of samples has good perception and behaviour, 74% has good perception and only 23% had moderate to poor perception, majority of participant were willingly taken vaccine and agree to recommend to others, not evidence any serious side effect due to vaccination.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.18.21260710: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Prior to the distribution, students were made clear about the objectives of this study and inform consent form. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
Res…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.18.21260710: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Prior to the distribution, students were made clear about the objectives of this study and inform consent form. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
-
-