4.7 Article

Public Perception towards the COVID-19 Vaccine in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

期刊

VACCINES
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10060867

关键词

COVID-19 pandemic; vaccine; public perception; acceptance rate; Saudi Arabia

资金

  1. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [RSP-2021/47]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine among people in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The results showed that a high percentage of participants accepted the vaccine, with higher acceptance among females and older individuals. Timely scientific recommendations were identified as the main influencing factor on participants' perception of the vaccine.
The vaccination campaign against COVID-19 is an essential public health strategy to reach herd immunity, eradicate diseases, and prevent a pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine among people in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Out of the 922 participants involved, 294 (31.9%) were male and 628 (68.1%) were female, with a mean age of 30-49 years. A bilingual, self-administered, computer-based questionnaire was designed and distributed through social media platforms. In total, 900 participants (97.6%) showed a high acceptance rate of the vaccine. The vaccine acceptance rate was higher among people aged 60 years and above than in other age groups (p = 0.008) and single individuals compared to other groups (p = 0.003). The results reveal a relatively high acceptance level of the COVID-19 vaccine among study participants. Importantly, regression analysis results show that female gender and elderly participants are more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccine than their counterparts. Moreover, the main factor that influenced the participants' perception of the COVID-19 vaccine was the proper timely scientific recommendations.

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

4.7
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