4.4 Article

Surveying willingness toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of healthcare workers in Italy

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF VACCINES
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 881-889

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2021.1922081

关键词

Attitudes; covid-19; hcws; italy; vaccination; willingness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that females, older HCWs, and those who perceived COVID-19 as a severe disease had higher levels of perceived risk of developing COVID-19. HCWs who were concerned about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccination were more likely to be married/cohabitant, not physicians, and needed additional information about the vaccine.
Background Understanding healthcare workers (HCWs) willingness to receive a future vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be useful. Methods Cross-sectional study, conducted in Italy from September 14(th) to November 30(th), 2020, among 811 HCWs who undergo a voluntary antibody-testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2. Results The perceived risk level of developing COVID-19, measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 10, was 6.6 and it was higher among females, older HCWs, and in those who agreed that COVID-19 is a severe disease. Married/cohabitant, not physicians, and those who needed additional information regarding the vaccination against COVID-19 were more likely to be concerned that COVID-19 vaccination might not be safe. Males, physicians, those who did not have had any symptom compatible with COVID-19, those who agreed that COVID-19 is a severe disease, those who perceived to be at higher risk of developing COVID-19, those who were not concerned about the vaccine's safety, and those who had received information regarding the COVID-19 vaccination from scientific journals expressed willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19. Conclusions Communication and education targeted to groups with lowest willingness are needed to raise awareness regarding the safety and benefits of the vaccination and to improve vaccine uptake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据