The SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy Among the General Population: A Large Cross-Sectional Study From Kuwait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the approved COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be safe and effective, multiple beliefs and misconceptions still exist influencing the vaccine uptake rates around the world. The multifaceted complex phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy could jeopardize the efforts to overcome this pandemic. The aim of this study is to identify the prevalence and examine the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Kuwait. This is a web-based cross-sectional study conducted in Kuwait from March 2021 until April 2021, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our questionnaire examined basic demographic information, attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccines as well as reasons for and against accepting the vaccine. Out of the 2345 responders, the majority are fully convinced to take the vaccine (83%) and the rate of vaccine hesitancy is 17%. Vaccine hesitancy is higher among non-healthcare workers, those previously positive for the COVID-19 virus, and those against vaccines in general. Vaccine hesitancy could jeopardize the efforts to overcome this pandemic; therefore, intensifying nationwide education and dismissal of falsified information is an essential step towards addressing vaccine hesitancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".