MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295749203 · doi:10.2196/36827

Perceptions of, and Obstacles to, SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Among Adults in Lebanon: Cross-sectional Online Survey

2022· article· en· W4295749203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadeem E Abou-Arraj, Diana Maddah, Vanessa Buhamdan, Roua Abbas, Nadine Jawad, Fatima Karaki, Nael H. Alami, Pascal Geldsetzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationSnowball samplingPandemicCross-sectional studyMedicineVaccine-preventable diseasesEnvironmental healthPublic healthHealth careFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceNursingImmunologyMeaslesDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an additional burden on Lebanon's fragmented health care system and adds to its ongoing political, economic, and refugee crises. Vaccination is an important means of reducing the impact of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Our study's aims were to (1) assess the prevalences of intention to vaccinate and vaccine hesitancy in Lebanon; (2) determine how vaccine hesitancy in Lebanon varies by sociodemographic, economic, and geographic characteristics; and (3) understand individuals' motivations for vaccinating as well as concerns and obstacles to vaccination. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study from January 29, 2021, to March 11, 2021, using an online questionnaire of open- and closed-ended questions in Arabic via convenience "snowball" sampling to assess the perceptions of adults residing in Lebanon. RESULTS: Of the 1185 adults who participated in the survey, 46.1% (95% CI: 43.2%-49.0%) intended to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when available to them, 19.0% (95% CI 16.8%-21.4%) indicated they would not, and 34.0% (95% CI 31.3%-36.8%) were unsure (with an additional 0.9% skipping this question). The most common reasons for hesitancy were concerns about safety, limited testing, side effects, and efficacy. Top motivations for vaccinating were to protect oneself, protect one's family and the public, and end the pandemic. Despite financial hardships in Lebanon, barriers to vaccine access were not frequently described as concerns. Established health care facilities, rather than new temporary vaccination centers, were most frequently selected as preferred vaccination sites. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy appears to be high in Lebanon. Disseminating clear, consistent, evidence-based safety and efficacy information on vaccines may help reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially among the large proportion of adults who appear to be unsure about (rather than opposed to) vaccination.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207