Are parents’ willing to vaccinate their children against COVID-19? A qualitative study based on the Health Belief Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries have started implementing voluntary or involuntary mass vaccination programs. Although vaccine acceptance is high among adults, uncertainty about whether to vaccinate children against COVID-19 remains a controversial theme. To date, few qualitative studies have explored parents' views on this topic. A qualitative descriptive study design was used to collect data and individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 50 parents in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. The Health Belief Model (HBM) was used as a guide in developing the interview guide. Each question was related to a construct of the HBM. The data were then analyzed using thematic content analysis and interpreted using NVivo software. Two major themes emerged: motivation to vaccinate children, which was influenced by perceived benefits, perceived severity, perceived suitability, collective responsibilities, confidence, and cues to action; and barriers to vaccination in children, which included complacency, rapid vaccine development, and uncertainty about the long-term side effects of the vaccine. The findings of this study revealed that the public is not sufficiently informed about the efficacy or side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, increasing the awareness of which will help parents make informed decisions regarding vaccinating their children and potentially increase vaccine acceptance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".