4.6 Article

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among medical students

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 445-449

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa230

关键词

COVID-19; medical students; vaccine hesitancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medical students generally have positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, but some are hesitant to participate in vaccine trials or get vaccinated immediately. Students willing to get vaccinated right away are more likely to trust public health experts and have fewer concerns about side effects, while concerns about serious side effects are associated with lower intent to participate in vaccine trials.
Background Medical students are among the group of frontline healthcare providers likely to be exposed to COVID-19 patients. It S important to achieve high COVID-19 vaccination coverage rates in this group as soon as a vaccine is available. As future healthcare providers, they will be entrusted with providing vaccine recommendations and counseling vaccine-hesitant patients. Methods This project used self-report to assess vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among medical students towards the novel COVID-19 vaccine. Results Nearly all participants had positive attitudes towards vaccines and agreed they would likely be exposed to COVID-19; however, only 53% indicated they would participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial and 23% were unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine immediately upon FDA approval. Students willing to immediately take the vaccine were more likely to trust public health experts, have fewer concerns about side effects and agree with vaccine mandates (P < 0.05). Concern for serious side effects was independently predictive of lower odds of intent to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (AOR = 0.41, P = 0.01). Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among US medical students and highlights the need for an educational curriculum about the safety and effectiveness to promote uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine.

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

4.6
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