Facilitators of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in Grenada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify the factors contributing to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Grenada. Methods: A phenomenological study was conducted using semi-structured interviews at vaccination and pop-up testing clinics during a spike in COVID-19 cases on the island. Interview questions were developed using the health belief model related to perceived threat of COVID-19, perceived benefits of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, and cues to action. Data were analyzed using a deductive approach to identify themes, categories, and subcategories. Results: Twenty-five interviews were transcribed and coded. In all, 68% of participants were unvaccinated, 12% were partially vaccinated, and 20% were fully vaccinated. Data analysis revealed two main themes: facilitators and barriers. Factors more likely to encourage vaccination (facilitators) included trust in medical advice and vaccine efficacy, social responsibility, and vaccine mandates for travel, employment, and social activities. Factors hindering vaccination (barriers) included: perceived low threat of COVID-19; preference for natural remedies; concerns about contraindications because of underlying health conditions; fear; mistrust of vaccines and related messaging; vaccine accessibility; and the many different information sources. Conclusions: Overcoming vaccine hesitancy is key to combating the detrimental effects of COVID-19 in Grenada. Public health interventions and policies that address barriers and capitalize on facilitators can increase vaccine uptake.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".