A qualitative study of Nigerian community members awareness of Mpox and their willingness and barriers to receiving the Mpox vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two vaccines, the JYNNEOS and ACAM 2000 have been approved for use for Mpox protection, however vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal poses a significant challenge in its uptake. This study explored participants’ awareness of Mpox, willingness, and barriers to receiving the approved Mpox vaccines when they become available in Nigeria. This was a qualitative cross-sectional study. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. A total of 16 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 64 in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted by trained research assistants among community members in four states in Nigeria (Bayelsa, Delta, Lagos, and Rivers states) between October 1 and November 30, 2023. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed before thematic analysis was conducted. One hundred and sixty-four persons, comprising 71 males and 93 females, participated in this study. The anticipated rollout of the Mpox vaccine in Nigeria elicited mixed reactions; while some participants expressed willingness to be vaccinated, others expressed their concerns about the vaccine side effects, vaccine safety, and their mistrust of new vaccines. There were also reports about physical access and financial cost being a barrier to receiving the Mpox vaccine. The study highlights the critical need for more community-based public health education campaigns to enhance awareness and correct misconceptions about Mpox. Effective communication strategies that address specific community issues and emphasize vaccine safety are important for increasing vaccination uptake and controlling the spread of Mpox in Nigeria.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".