{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Associated Factors among Unvaccinated Workers at a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Thailand","authors":"Guanjie Li, Yanxu Zhong, Hein Htet, Yunyan Luo, Xizhuo Xie, W. Wichaidit","doi":"10.1177/23333928221083057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Hospital workers are at high risk of COVID-19 infection which is now vaccine-preventable. However, vaccine refusals also occur among hospital workers, but the associated factors have not been described. Objectives To describe: (1) the level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and; (2) the extent that history of pre-pandemic vaccine hesitancy and health beliefs regarding COVID-19 were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among workers at a tertiary hospital in southern Thailand. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based self-administered questionnaire at a tertiary hospital in south Thailand in April 2021 and used multivariable logistic regression to identify psychological-behavioral factors associated with vaccine acceptance. Results Of 359 workers invited to participate, 226 participants returned the questionnaires, 67% of whom reported willingness to accept the vaccine. Vaccine acceptance was associated with perceived severity of disease (Adjusted OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04, 4.10), perceived harm from non-vaccination (Adjusted OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.27, 4.96), and lower expectation of vaccine efficacy (Adjusted OR = 3.80, 95% CI = 1.87, 7.71). Conclusion Most workers in this study were willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, and such acceptance was associated with components of the health belief model. However, the cross-sectional study design did not allow causal inference, and study data were all self-reported with no probing of the responses. These limitations should be considered as caveats in the interpretation of the study findings.","PeriodicalId":12951,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928221083057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background Hospital workers are at high risk of COVID-19 infection which is now vaccine-preventable. However, vaccine refusals also occur among hospital workers, but the associated factors have not been described. Objectives To describe: (1) the level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and; (2) the extent that history of pre-pandemic vaccine hesitancy and health beliefs regarding COVID-19 were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among workers at a tertiary hospital in southern Thailand. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based self-administered questionnaire at a tertiary hospital in south Thailand in April 2021 and used multivariable logistic regression to identify psychological-behavioral factors associated with vaccine acceptance. Results Of 359 workers invited to participate, 226 participants returned the questionnaires, 67% of whom reported willingness to accept the vaccine. Vaccine acceptance was associated with perceived severity of disease (Adjusted OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04, 4.10), perceived harm from non-vaccination (Adjusted OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.27, 4.96), and lower expectation of vaccine efficacy (Adjusted OR = 3.80, 95% CI = 1.87, 7.71). Conclusion Most workers in this study were willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, and such acceptance was associated with components of the health belief model. However, the cross-sectional study design did not allow causal inference, and study data were all self-reported with no probing of the responses. These limitations should be considered as caveats in the interpretation of the study findings.