Concerns about and stimuli of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among diverse occupational groups in metropolitan areas of China: A cross-sectional study
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 12, Issue: 12, Page: e062032
2022
- 2Citations
- 21Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
Concerns about and stimuli of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among diverse occupational groups in metropolitan areas of China: a cross-sectional study
Strengths and limitations of this study In this study, we made comparisons among various occupations and included both positive and negative factors of vaccination hesitancy
Article Description
Objectives In this study, we aimed to identify concerns and stimuli regarding COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and to compare the findings by occupation. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 April and 30 June 2021 in four metropolitan areas of China. A total of 20 863 participants completed questionnaires, 20 767 of which were eligible for analysis. We used ordered logistic regression to assess the association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy according to occupation. Results Farmers were mainly concerned about the quality of vaccines (adjusted OR (aOR): 3.18, 95% CI (CI): 1.83 to 5.54). Among civil servants, media publicity reduced hesitancy (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.92). Among medical staff, concerns about a short duration of protective effects increased hesitancy (aOR: 8.31, 95% CI: 2.03 to 33.99). For most occupations, concerns about side effects, poor protective effects and health status increased hesitancy. In contrast, protecting oneself and protecting others acted as a stimulus to decrease hesitancy. Interestingly, € people around me have been vaccinated' was associated with higher vaccination hesitancy among farmers (aOR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.20 to 4.00). Conclusion The association of vaccination concerns and stimuli with vaccination hesitancy varied by occupation. The characteristics and concerns of specific target audiences should be considered when designing informational campaigns to promote vaccination against COVID-19.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85144490905&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062032; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36549746; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062032; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062032; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e062032; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e062032.abstract; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/12/e062032.full.pdf
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know