MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412496052 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127529

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and perceived post-vaccination adverse event: Findings from a cross-sectional survey

2025· article· en· W4412496052 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maude Dionne, Chantal Sauvageau, Jeremy K. Ward, Jérémie Sylvain-Morneau, Fátima Gauna, Radhouene Doggui, Ève Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociauxUniversité Laval
KeywordsCross-sectional studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Vaccination2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Adverse effectMedicineEvent (particle physics)PandemicVirologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineOutbreakInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In Quebec, COVID-19 vaccine uptake among adults was high for the first two doses but decreased for the subsequent booster doses. This study assesses the relationships between attitudes towards vaccination and self-reported experience and severity of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). METHODS: A web survey of Quebec adults who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was conducted in September 2023. Participants share their level of vaccine hesitancy before vaccination and their experience with AEFIs after receiving a dose. Participants were asked to note the severity of the symptoms they believed were due to vaccination. Intention to receive other vaccines in the future was questioned. Two coders performed a qualitative content analysis on reported AEFIs (N = 3808). Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 8419 vaccinated respondents, 46.7 % reported having experienced AEFIs. Fatigue or malaise (20.7 %), injection site disorder (17.3 %), musculoskeletal pain (11.2 %), headache (11.0 %), and fever (10.6 %) were the most commonly reported, respectively. Respondents who were very hesitant before the COVID-19 vaccine reported more frequently having a severe AEFI compared to those who were not hesitant (25.0 % vs 3.4 % =, p < 0.001). This affirmation stays true when all severity of adverse events are considered (68.7 % vs 36.9 %) (p < 0.001). Younger age (aOR = 0.98), being a female (aOR = 1.31), a higher education level (University degree aOR = 1.56 vs high school or less), being vaccine-hesitant in general (aOR = 1.69 vs non or less hesitant) were significantly associated (p < 0.001) with self-reported AEFIs in multivariate analysis. Self-reported AEFIs that prevented doing activities (aOR = 4.87) and being vaccine-hesitant in general (aOR = 4.94) were significantly associated with reduced intention to receive other vaccines in the future. CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy could influence self-reported AEFIs and their perceived severity. Transparent and tailored communication explaining AEFIs while emphasizing strategies to mitigate these effects could helpful. Our findings also have implications for pharmacovigilance. 301 mots.

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)0.003
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 score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccine→Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→