DataSheet1_Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Workers in Nigeria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.pdf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Nigerian healthcare professionals. Methods An extensive language-unrestricted literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and the African Index Medicus to identify studies reporting hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers in Nigeria. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cross-sectional studies. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results Of the 206 articles, 22 publications with 20,724 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 75% (95% CI: 61%–88%, I<sup>2</sup> = 99.69%, P < 0.001). Reasons for hesitancy, including concerns about side effects, lack of trust, and safety, were prevalent at 76% (CI: 0.57–0.94, I<sup>2</sup> = 99.24%, P < 0.001), 55% (CI: 0.042–0.272, I<sup>2</sup> = 97.42%, P < 0.001), and 68% (CI: 0.047–0.89, I<sup>2</sup> = 98.59%, P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion There was significant hesitancy among Nigerian healthcare workers towards COVID-19 vaccination; thus, strategies to increase vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers should be developed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".