Healthcare Workers and Nonhealthcare Workers Pro-Vaccination Attitude and Its Associated Factors towards COVID-19 Vaccine Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has not been managed and controlled globally. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the global pro-vaccination attitude and associated factors towards COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) and nonhealthcare workers (non-HCWs). Methods. Different databases such as PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were used. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 flowchart diagram and PRISMA checklist were used for study screening, selection, and inclusion into this systematic review and meta-analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment criteria for cross-sectional studies were used to assess the included articles. Results. A total of 51 studies were included into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the global pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among both HCWs and non-HCWs was 61.30% (95%CI: 56.12, 66.47, I2 = 99.8%: <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.000</a:mn> </a:math> ). Subgroup analysis showed that the global pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine was the lowest (59.77%, 95%CI (51.56, 67.98); I2 = 99.6%, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.000</c:mn> </c:math> ) among the HCWs participants and the highest (62.53%, 95%CI (55.39, 69.67); I2 = 99.8%, <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.000</e:mn> </e:math> ) among the non-HCWs participants and the lowest (54.31%, 95%CI (43, 65.63); I2 = 99.5%, <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.000</g:mn> </g:math> ) for sample size <700 and the highest (66.49%, 95%CI (60.01, 72.98); I2 = 99.8%, <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.000</i:mn> </i:math> ) for sample size >700; the lowest (60.70%, 95%CI (54.08, 67.44); I2 = 93.0%, <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:mo>=</k:mo> <k:mn>0.000</k:mn> </k:math> ) for studies published in 2020 year and the highest (61.31%, 95%CI (55.93, 66.70); I2 = 99.8%, <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0.000</m:mn> </m:math> ) for the studies published after 2020 years. From this systematic review, factors significantly associated with pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs were such as age, gender, race, work experience, home location, having no fear of injections, being a non-smoker, profession, presence of chronic illnesses, allergies, confidence in pharmaceutical companies, history of taking influenza vaccine, vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of new vaccines, perceived utility of vaccine, receiving a seasonal flu vaccination in the last 5 years, working in a private hospital, a high perceived pandemic risk index, low vaccine harm index, high pro-socialness index, being in close contact with a high-risk group, knowledge about the virus, confidence in and expectations about personal protective equipment, and behaviors. The level of positive attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among non-HCWs ranged from 21.40% to 91.99%. Factors associated with the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among non-HCWs were such as age, gender, educational level, occupation, marital status, residency, income, ethnicity, risk for severe course of COVID-19, direct contact with COVID-19 at work, being a health profession, being vaccinated against seasonal flu, perceived benefits, cues to actions, having previous history of vaccination, fear of passing on the disease to relatives, and the year of medical study, studying health-related courses, COVID-19 concern, adherence level to social distancing guidelines, history of chronic disease, being pregnant, perceived vaccine safety, having more information about vaccine effectiveness, mandatory vaccination, being recommended to be vaccinated, lack of confidence in the healthcare system to control epidemic, and belief in COVID-19 vaccines protection from COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. This meta-analysis revealed that the global estimated pooled prevalence of pro-vaccination attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine among both HCWs and non-HCWs was unsatisfactory. Globally, there is a need for a call for action to cease the crisis of this pandemic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".