MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392197950 · doi:10.1080/20523211.2024.2308617

Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among the public

2024· article· en· W4392197950 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmathi Karuppannan, Long Chiau Ming, Mohd Shahezwan Abd Wahab, Zakiah Mohd Noordin, Shermaine Yee, Andi Hermansyah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PharmacyMedicineVirologyPublic healthPandemicFamily medicineInternal medicineOutbreakPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The safety, side effects and efficacy profile of COVID-19 vaccines remain subjects of ongoing concern among the public in Malaysia. The aim of this study was to determine the types of adverse effects following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines and the differences based on various types of COVID-19 vaccines to raise public awareness and reduce vaccine hesitancy among the public.Methods A total of 901 Malaysian adults (≥18 years) who received various COVID-19 vaccines were selected to participate in our cross-sectional study through an online survey between December 2021 and January 2022.Results A total of 814 (90.3%) of the participants reported ≥1 side effect following COVID-19 immunisation. Of these, the predominant symptoms were swelling at the injection site (n = 752, 83.5%), headache (n = 638, 70.8%), pain or soreness at the injection site (n = 628, 69.7%), fatigue or tiredness (n = 544, 60.4%), muscle weakness (n = 529, 58.7%) and diarrhea (n = 451, 50.1%). Recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty ®) vaccine reported the highest number of adverse effects (n = 355, 43.6%), followed by mixed COVID-19 vaccines (n = 254, 31.2%), the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-®[recombinant]) vaccine (n = 113, 13.9%) and the Sinovac (CoronaVac®) vaccine (n = 90, 11.1%). The study showed that individuals who reported significantly more side effects were of elderly age, female gender and high educational level [P value < 0.05]. Mixed COVID-19 vaccine recipients also reported significantly more local and systemic symptoms after the first dose and third dose when compared with other single vaccine recipients.Conclusion This study demonstrated the types of self-reported adverse effects following immunisation with single and mixed COVID-19 vaccines. These findings may provide the side effects of different COVID-19 vaccines with the hope of educating the public on the safety profiles of these vaccines and reducing vaccine hesitancy among the public.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and PracticeSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207