3.8 Article

I Believe in Science and in All Vaccines: Older Adult and the Intention for a Vaccine against COVID-19

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_17_22

关键词

Aging; coronavirus; COVID-19; health policy; vaccine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the intention of older Brazilian adults to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, their perception of vulnerability to the virus, and their opinion on the national immunization plan. The majority of participants expressed concern about their immune system's vulnerability and dissatisfaction with the organization of the national plan. However, they reported an intention to receive the vaccine, though with doubts about its effectiveness, and anticipated changes in their lives and the world after the pandemic.
Introduction: To investigate the intention of older Brazilian adults to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, to find out their perception of the older adults' fragility to the virus, and to know their opinion on the progress of the national immunization plan against COVID-19. Methods: An exploratory qualitative study was carried out through semi-structured telephone calls with 32 participants (aged 60-89), between February and March 2021. Data were analyzed thematically, emerging three major themes. Results: Most participants expressed concern about the vulnerability of their immune system to the coronavirus, and dissatisfaction with the organization of the national immunization plan. Strong criticism was leveled at the leadership of the President of the Republic due to his resistance to vaccination and encouraging the use of hydroxychloroquine. Conclusion: The vast majority of respondents reported an intention to receive the vaccine. The short time for the production of vaccines generated distrust with its effectiveness. All expressed dissatisfaction with the organization of the national immunization plan, and agreed that after the pandemic, their lives and the world will no longer be as before.

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

3.8
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