Knowledge, Attitude, And Practice Among Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Myths On COVID-19 Vaccination: A cross-sectional questionnaire study and demystification

IF 0.6 Q4 Health Professions
L. S, Z. Naik, Arun Panwar, S. M, V. Keluskar, R. K
{"title":"Knowledge, Attitude, And Practice Among Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Myths On COVID-19 Vaccination: A cross-sectional questionnaire study and demystification","authors":"L. S, Z. Naik, Arun Panwar, S. M, V. Keluskar, R. K","doi":"10.24083/apjhm.v18i1.1441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: COVID-19 vaccine is the mighty weapon opted by all the countries across the globe in an attempt to eradicate the fatal COVID-19 pandemic. The myths on the COVID-19 vaccine are spreading widely, causing a hindrance to this noble preventive measure. The prevalence of such myths among healthcare professionals may be toxic and deadly.\nAim & Objectives: To assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the healthcare professionals regarding the myths on COVID-19 vaccination and to demystify them.Materials and Methods: An 18-item questionnaire evaluating knowledge, attitude, and practice based on the existing myths on COVID-19 vaccination was circulated through Google Forms® among the 412 healthcare professionals of six disciplines belonging to a private University. The responses obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS® 20 software package.\nResults: A total of 385 health professionals participated in this study. The majority of them had medium knowledge (165) and positive attitude (273) with the mean knowledge and attitude scores of 3.82 ± 1.55 out of 6 and 4.3 ± 1.58 out of 7 respectively. Even though 312 participants got vaccinated, 72 of them failed to receive it. The knowledge scores showed a high statistically significant difference among the participants of different designations (p=0.001), but not with gender, field, and staff with different years of experience (p>0.05). The attitude scores were statistically different among participants of fields and designation (p<0.05) but not among genders (p=0.31) and staff with different years of experience (p=0.87). Knowledge and attitude scores showed a positive linear correlation and a high statistically significant difference (p<0.001).\nConclusion: This study recommends more enhanced education programs on COVID-19 vaccination for the health professionals and demands an improved knowledge, attitude, and practice among them to achieve the goal of 100% vaccination so as to completely eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":42935,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24083/apjhm.v18i1.1441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 vaccine is the mighty weapon opted by all the countries across the globe in an attempt to eradicate the fatal COVID-19 pandemic. The myths on the COVID-19 vaccine are spreading widely, causing a hindrance to this noble preventive measure. The prevalence of such myths among healthcare professionals may be toxic and deadly. Aim & Objectives: To assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the healthcare professionals regarding the myths on COVID-19 vaccination and to demystify them.Materials and Methods: An 18-item questionnaire evaluating knowledge, attitude, and practice based on the existing myths on COVID-19 vaccination was circulated through Google Forms® among the 412 healthcare professionals of six disciplines belonging to a private University. The responses obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS® 20 software package. Results: A total of 385 health professionals participated in this study. The majority of them had medium knowledge (165) and positive attitude (273) with the mean knowledge and attitude scores of 3.82 ± 1.55 out of 6 and 4.3 ± 1.58 out of 7 respectively. Even though 312 participants got vaccinated, 72 of them failed to receive it. The knowledge scores showed a high statistically significant difference among the participants of different designations (p=0.001), but not with gender, field, and staff with different years of experience (p>0.05). The attitude scores were statistically different among participants of fields and designation (p<0.05) but not among genders (p=0.31) and staff with different years of experience (p=0.87). Knowledge and attitude scores showed a positive linear correlation and a high statistically significant difference (p<0.001). Conclusion: This study recommends more enhanced education programs on COVID-19 vaccination for the health professionals and demands an improved knowledge, attitude, and practice among them to achieve the goal of 100% vaccination so as to completely eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic.
卫生保健专业人员对COVID-19疫苗接种神话的知识、态度和实践:一项横断面问卷研究和揭开神秘面纱
背景:新冠肺炎疫苗是全球各国为根除致命的新冠肺炎大流行而选择的强大武器。关于新冠肺炎疫苗的神话正在广泛传播,阻碍了这一崇高的预防措施。这种神话在医疗保健专业人员中的普遍存在可能是有毒和致命的。目的与目的:评估医疗保健专业人员对新冠肺炎疫苗接种神话的知识、态度和实践,并解开它们的神秘面纱。材料和方法:根据新冠肺炎疫苗接种的现有神话,通过Google Forms®在一所私立大学六个学科的412名医疗保健专业人员中分发了一份18项问卷,评估知识、态度和实践。使用SPSS®20软件包对获得的回答进行统计分析。结果:共有385名卫生专业人员参与了这项研究。他们中的大多数人具有中等知识(165)和积极态度(273),平均知识和态度得分分别为3.82±1.55分(满分6分)和4.3±1.58分(满分7分)。尽管312名参与者接种了疫苗,但其中72人没有接种。知识得分显示,不同名称的参与者之间存在统计学上的显著差异(p=0.001),但与性别、领域、,以及不同工作年限的员工(p>0.05)。不同领域和职称的参与者的态度得分有统计学差异(p<0.05),但性别(p=0.31)和不同工作年限员工的态度得分没有统计学差异(p=0.87)。知识和态度得分呈正线性相关,差异具有统计学意义(p<0.001)。结论:本研究建议为卫生专业人员提供更多关于新冠肺炎疫苗接种的强化教育计划,并要求他们提高知识、态度和实践,以实现100%疫苗接种的目标,从而彻底根除新冠肺炎大流行。
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
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
51
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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