A qualitative study of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among South Asians in London.

JRSM Open Pub Date : 2022-10-04 eCollection Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1177/20542704221123430
Raj S Chandok, Poonam Madar, Azeem Majeed
{"title":"A qualitative study of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among South Asians in London.","authors":"Raj S Chandok,&nbsp;Poonam Madar,&nbsp;Azeem Majeed","doi":"10.1177/20542704221123430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This qualitative study sought to elicit the views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among South Asians in London.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In-depth semi-structured telephone and virtual interviews.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Convenience and purposive sample of 12 individuals including patients, clinicians, and a medical receptionist.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Our dataset identifies and explains the reasons for distinguishing between those individuals who are <i>COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant,</i> and those who are <i>COVID-19 vaccine-anxious.</i></p><p><strong>Results: </strong>COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the decision on whether to - or not to - vaccinate against COVID-19 involves ongoing and unresolved inner conflict about COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings therefore suggest that some individuals may be existing in a state of <i>inbetweeness;</i> where they are neither pro nor anti vaccination, while simultaneously questioning the many 'truths' surrounding COVID-19 and not just one truth such as the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. We argue that this <i>in-between</i> state is intensified by technology and social media; culminating in the <i>Rashomon Effect,</i> whereby a combination of truths, fractured truths, subjective realities, and unreliable or contradictory sources impact on our perceptions of COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the complexities arising from the multiple factors influencing vaccine hesitancy and scepticism, 'quick fixes' and 'one size fits all' solutions to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will be ineffective. Therefore, promoting trust and prioritising good after-care as well as on-going care as a response to the effects of the pandemic is vital.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"13 10","pages":"20542704221123430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/dc/10.1177_20542704221123430.PMC9536136.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704221123430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: This qualitative study sought to elicit the views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among South Asians in London.

Design: In-depth semi-structured telephone and virtual interviews.

Setting: UK.

Participants: Convenience and purposive sample of 12 individuals including patients, clinicians, and a medical receptionist.

Main outcome measures: Our dataset identifies and explains the reasons for distinguishing between those individuals who are COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant, and those who are COVID-19 vaccine-anxious.

Results: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the decision on whether to - or not to - vaccinate against COVID-19 involves ongoing and unresolved inner conflict about COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings therefore suggest that some individuals may be existing in a state of inbetweeness; where they are neither pro nor anti vaccination, while simultaneously questioning the many 'truths' surrounding COVID-19 and not just one truth such as the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. We argue that this in-between state is intensified by technology and social media; culminating in the Rashomon Effect, whereby a combination of truths, fractured truths, subjective realities, and unreliable or contradictory sources impact on our perceptions of COVID-19.

Conclusions: Given the complexities arising from the multiple factors influencing vaccine hesitancy and scepticism, 'quick fixes' and 'one size fits all' solutions to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will be ineffective. Therefore, promoting trust and prioritising good after-care as well as on-going care as a response to the effects of the pandemic is vital.

Abstract Image

影响伦敦南亚人COVID-19疫苗犹豫因素的定性研究
目的:本定性研究旨在征求患者和卫生保健专业人员的意见和经验,以确定与伦敦南亚人COVID-19疫苗犹豫相关的因素。设计:深入的半结构化电话和虚拟访谈。设置:英国。参与者:方便且有目的的12人样本,包括患者、临床医生和一名医疗接待员。主要结局指标:我们的数据集确定并解释了区分COVID-19疫苗犹豫者和COVID-19疫苗焦虑者的原因。结果:COVID-19疫苗犹豫和是否接种COVID-19疫苗的决定涉及持续且未解决的COVID-19疫苗内部冲突。因此,我们的研究结果表明,一些个体可能存在于一种中间状态;他们既不支持也不反对疫苗接种,同时质疑围绕COVID-19的许多“真相”,而不仅仅是一个真相,如COVID-19疫苗的安全性。我们认为,技术和社交媒体加剧了这种中间状态;最终形成了“罗生门效应”,即真相、破碎的真相、主观现实以及不可靠或相互矛盾的消息来源共同影响着我们对COVID-19的看法。结论:考虑到影响疫苗犹豫和怀疑的多重因素所带来的复杂性,解决COVID-19疫苗犹豫的“权宜之计”和“一刀切”的解决方案将是无效的。因此,促进信任并将良好的术后护理和持续护理作为应对大流行影响的优先事项至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信