IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i10p5901-d1152120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Get Vaccinated or Not? The Vaccination Decision-Making by Healthcare Professionals Working in Haematology: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Gian Luca Tunisi

    (Servizio Professioni sanitarie Azienda Ospedaliera, Universitaria Integrata di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

  • Elisa Ambrosi

    (Dipartimento di Diagnostica e Sanità Pubblica, Università degli studi di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

  • Giorgia Zulianello

    (Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

  • Elisabetta Allegrini

    (Servizio Professioni sanitarie Azienda Ospedaliera, Universitaria Integrata di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

  • Domenico Provenzano

    (Servizio Professioni sanitarie Azienda Ospedaliera, Universitaria Integrata di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

  • Tiziana Rizzello

    (Unità di Ematologia, “Pia Fondazione Card G. Panico” Ospedale Tricase, 73100 Lecce, Italy)

  • Federica Canzan

    (Dipartimento di Diagnostica e Sanità Pubblica, Università degli studi di Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy)

Abstract

Haematological patients are more susceptible to infections. Vaccination has always been the most effective primary prevention strategy, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the efficacy of vaccines for some haematological patients is low. Although vaccination of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) could protect patients from vaccine-preventable diseases, there is evidence of a high level of hesitation among healthcare workers in Italy. The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes towards vaccination of HCWs caring for haematology patients. Qualitative descriptive design was conducted. Twenty-one HCWs were interviewed. Content analysis was applied to the qualitative data. The following themes were generated from the analysis: “Trust”, “Decision-making process focusing on individual health”, “Decision-making process focusing on community health”, “Changing opinion”, and “Two sides of vaccination commitment”. The most hesitant HCWs were oriented towards individual health. They perceived a lack of benefit from vaccines, feared side effects, or were influenced by negative experiences of others. In contrast, community-health-oriented HCWs showed more positive attitudes towards vaccination. Some hesitant HCWs changed their opinion on vaccination because they began to reflect on the importance of vaccination for the community. The change in opinion of some HCWs interviewed provided insight into the importance of focusing organisational efforts on collective responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Gian Luca Tunisi & Elisa Ambrosi & Giorgia Zulianello & Elisabetta Allegrini & Domenico Provenzano & Tiziana Rizzello & Federica Canzan, 2023. "To Get Vaccinated or Not? The Vaccination Decision-Making by Healthcare Professionals Working in Haematology: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5901-:d:1152120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5901/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5901/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robertson, Deirdre & Mohr, Kieran & Barjaková, Martina & Lunn, Pete, 2021. "A lack of perceived benefits and a gap in knowledge distinguish the vaccine hesitant from vaccine accepting during the COVID-19 pandemic," Papers WP703, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    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.

      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:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5901-:d:1152120. 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.