IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7231-d837712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study on the Risk of Getting Sick with COVID-19, the Course of the Disease, and the Impact of the National Vaccination Program against SARS-CoV-2 on Vaccination among Health Professionals in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Sylwia Kałucka

    (Department of Coordinated Care, Medical University of Lodz, 90-251 Lodz, Poland)

  • Ewa Kusideł

    (Department of Spatial Econometrics, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, 90-255 Lodz, Poland)

  • Izabela Grzegorczyk-Karolak

    (Department of Biology and Pharmaceutical Botany, Medical University of Lodz, 90-151 Lodz, Poland)

Abstract

Six months after starting the National Vaccination Program against COVID-19, a cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted among 1200 salaried and non-salaried healthcare workers (HCWs) in Poland. Its aim was to assess factors including the risk of exposure to COVID-19, experiences with COVID-19, the trust in different sources of knowledge about the pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the government campaign on vaccination as predictors of vaccination acceptance. The strongest awareness of a high risk of work-associated infection was demonstrated by doctors (D) (72.6%) and nurses and midwives (N) (64.8%); however, almost half of the medical students (MS) and nursing and midwifery students (NS) did not identify as a risk group. Out of several dozen variables related to sociodemographic characteristics and personal experience of COVID-19, only occupation, previous COVID-19 infection, and high stress seemed to significantly influence vaccination acceptance. Interestingly, only 6.7% of respondents admitted that the government campaign impacted their decision to vaccinate. This result is not surprising considering that the vast majority of respondents (87.8%) learned about vaccinations from sources such as academic lectures (29.9%), health professionals (29.0%), or the internet (28.9%). Those who gained information about vaccination from traditional media (radio, television, and daily press), a popular platform of the government campaign, had a lower propensity to vaccinate (OR = 0.16, p < 0.001). Additionally, almost twice as many considered the information provided in the campaign to be unreliable. Our findings, from this retrospective study, do not confirm that the government campaign was effective for healthcare professionals. Therefore, in this group, other forms of vaccination incentives should be sought. However, the vaccinated respondents were significantly more likely to support compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 among health professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylwia Kałucka & Ewa Kusideł & Izabela Grzegorczyk-Karolak, 2022. "A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study on the Risk of Getting Sick with COVID-19, the Course of the Disease, and the Impact of the National Vaccination Program against SARS-CoV-2 on Vaccination among H," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7231-:d:837712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7231/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7231/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barber, Andrew & West, Jeremy, 2022. "Conditional cash lotteries increase COVID-19 vaccination rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Elena Savoia & Maxwell Su & Rachael Piltch-Loeb & Evelyn Masterson & Marcia A. Testa, 2021. "COVID-19 Vaccine Early Skepticism, Misinformation and Informational Needs among Essential Workers in the USA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Amanda Hudson & William J. Montelpare, 2021. "Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy: Implications for COVID-19 Public Health Messaging," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Tinglong Dai & Sridhar Tayur, 2022. "Designing AI‐augmented healthcare delivery systems for physician buy‐in and patient acceptance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4443-4451, December.
    3. Takeshi Yoda & Nagisa Iwasaki & Hironobu Katsuyama, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for COVID-19 Vaccines in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(22), pages 1-11, November.
    4. Mateusz Ciski & Krzysztof Rząsa, 2023. "Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression in the Investigation of Local COVID-19 Anomalies Based on Population Age Structure in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Xudong Gao & Feng Ding & Ting Ai, 2022. "What Drives Elderly People in China Away from COVID-19 Information?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Alexander Karaivanov & Dongwoo Kim & Shih En Lu & Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2022. "COVID-19 vaccination mandates and vaccine uptake," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1615-1624, December.
    7. Bonander, Carl & Ekman, Mats & Jakobsson, Niklas, 2022. "Vaccination nudges: A study of pre-booked COVID-19 vaccinations in Sweden," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    8. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsutsui & Fumio Ohtake, 2023. "Would Monetary Incentives to COVID-19 vaccination reduce motivation?," Papers 2311.11828, arXiv.org.
    9. Cory Anderson & Shuai Zhou & Guangqing Chi, 2023. "Population-Wide Vaccination Hesitancy among the Amish: A County-Level Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Adoption and Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(4), pages 1-24, August.
    10. Victoria Baudisch & Matthias Neuenkirch, 2023. "Costly, but (Relatively) Ineffective? An Assessment of Germany’s Temporary VAT Rate Reduction During the Covid-19 Pandemic," Research Papers in Economics 2023-04, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    11. Josselin Thuilliez & Nouhoum Touré, 2024. "Opinions and vaccination during an epidemic," Post-Print hal-04490900, HAL.
    12. Vieri Lastrucci & Chiara Lorini & Lorenzo Stacchini & Enrica Stancanelli & Andrea Guida & Alessio Radi & Chiara Morittu & Salvatore Zimmitti & Giorgia Alderotti & Marco Del Riccio & Angela Bechini & S, 2022. "Determinants of Actual COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in a Cohort of Essential Workers: An Area-Based Longitudinal Study in the Province of Prato, Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Carl Bonander & Mats Ekman & Niklas Jakobsson, 2023. "When do default nudges work?," Oxford Open Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pages 391-425.
    14. Xinrui Zhang & Tom Lane, 2022. "The backfiring effects of monetary and gift incentives on Covid-19 vaccination willingness," Discussion Papers 2022-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Reddinger, J. Lucas & Charness, Gary & Levine, David, 2022. "Prosocial motivation for vaccination," SocArXiv emj6v, Center for Open Science.
    16. Shusaku Sasaki & Takahiro Kubo & Shodai Kitano, 2024. "Prosocial and Financial Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: A Field Experiment Using a Smartphone App," Papers 2402.18047, arXiv.org.
    17. Virginie-Eve Lvovschi & Florence Carrouel & Benjamin du Sartz de Vigneulles & Michel Lamure & Geneviève Motyka & Laurie Fraticelli & Claude Dussart, 2022. "Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Related to Medication, Antibiotics, and Vaccination among Public Service Population: National Survey Conducted in France," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-20, October.
    18. Orhan Erdem & Sukran Erdem & Kelly Monson, 2023. "Children, vaccines, and financial incentives," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 537-552, December.
    19. John R. Kues & Jacqueline M. Knapke & Shereen Elshaer & Angela M. Mendell & Laura Hildreth & Stephanie M. Schuckman & Julie Wijesooriya & Melinda Butsch Kovacic, 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Critical Time Period Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-8, July.
    20. Facciani, Matthew & Lazić, Aleksandra & Viggiano, Gracemarie & McKay, Tara, 2023. "Political network composition predicts vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7231-:d:837712. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.