{"id":53353,"date":"2023-12-31T11:42:23","date_gmt":"2023-12-31T11:42:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=53353"},"modified":"2024-01-05T06:08:28","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T06:08:28","slug":"level-of-acceptance-of-covid-19-vaccine-and-attributes-influencing-vaccination-a-study-among-the-multi-national-population-in-the-uae","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no4\/level-of-acceptance-of-covid-19-vaccine-and-attributes-influencing-vaccination-a-study-among-the-multi-national-population-in-the-uae\/","title":{"rendered":"Level of Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine and Attributes Influencing Vaccination – A Study among the Multi-national Population in the UAE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The COVID-19 virus is a serious hazard, and its rapid spread\nnecessitates vaccinations and other\nmedical procedures in place. People of all ages may be at risk for this global\npublic health due to vaccine reluctance. Though health workers are at a high\nrisk of exposure, it is important to have a strategy to prioritize people for\nvaccination and it is imperative to assess the level of acceptance of the\nvaccine and attributes influencing the vaccination among the people of the\nUnited Arab Emirates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new vaccine’s adoption is\ninfluenced by several factors, such as its effectiveness, negative health\neffects, misunderstandings about the vaccination mandate, a lack of trust, and\nignorance. Reluctance to receive a vaccine could endanger public health and\ncould delay the necessary rapid action. Naturally, the community would have\npre-conceived behavior in vaccine acceptance and it varies according to time\nand place. According to a study conducted in Indonesia with 1,359 participants,\n93.3% of participants would prefer to receive a vaccination that was 95%\neffective, while this acceptance fell to 67.0% for a vaccination that was 50%\neffective.1<\/sup> 53.1% of those polled in Kuwait’s general adult\npopulation said they would take the COVID-19 vaccination when it became\navailable. Male subjects (58.3% vs 50.9%) were more open to receiving the\nCOVID-19 vaccine than female subjects. Only a minority was willing to take\nimmunization when they believed that vaccines generally carried dangers to\ntheir health.2<\/sup> In a study of US people, political views and traits\nrelevant to vaccination were linked to both self-reported preferences for a\nfictitious COVID-19 vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive the shot.3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hand washing and immunizations\nare two public health measures that assist stop the transmission and effects of\nillnesses. However, there is a significant burden of infection worldwide,\nnecessitating further action.4<\/sup> Though the spread rate seems to vary\nfrom country to country, possibly reflecting differences in how rapidly local\nhealth authorities respond to isolate and effectively care for the affected population.5<\/sup>\nAccording to a survey conducted in China, 52.2% of participants desired to\nreceive the vaccine as soon as it was made available. In contrast, 47.8% of\npeople would put off getting vaccinated until they were certain it was safe.\nThe majority of responders (49.4%) favored routine immunization schedules\nbefore the outbreak to emergency immunization (9.0%) or adopting both vaccine\nschedules (41.6%). Overall, 64.2% of respondents had no preference for either\ndomestically produced or imported vaccines, while 32.5% did.6<\/sup>\nAccording to a global study, 48.1% of respondents indicated they would get\nvaccinated if their employer advised it, and 71.5% said they would take a\nvaccine if it were shown to be safe and effective.7<\/sup> Studies on\nvaccination adoption among workers in other professions with a high risk of\ninfection during the pandemic, such as those in retail or restaurants who have\ndirect contact with clients, are scarce. During the lockdown, residents of\nScotland indicated that 74% of them would be open to receiving a COVID-19\nvaccination; however, with the relaxation of the restrictions, this number\nincreased to 78% at the time of the second survey.8<\/sup> According to an\nAmerican study, 67% of COVID-19 vaccination recipients showed positive\nreactions, with clear demographic and geographic differences.9<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The perceived risk of infection, individual repercussions, and the behavior of people, in general, all affect how likely the public is to adopt a vaccination. The studies being conducted to compare the vaccination coverage in the various locations might benefit from a calculation of the United Arab Emirates’ acceptance rate. This would produce scientific evidence to increase public confidence and successfully address the pandemic’s control delay. The acceptance of vaccines is influenced significantly by age-related variances, cultural variety, religious views, educational background, employment requirements, and socioeconomic status. The current study clarifies the advantages (and disadvantages) of the recently created vaccines as a preventative approach. This study intends to analyze the factors influencing the study population’s use and non-use of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the participants’ perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine. It also attempts to identify the degree of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine by the study population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A cross-sectional study was\nconducted to assess the level of vaccine acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine\namong adults residing in the United Arab Emirates. The study was conducted\namong the general public in the UAE. The sample size was calculated based on\nthe sample size formula for a cross-sectional study; the study included 671\nparticipants from a multi-national population. A self-administered\nquestionnaire was developed after a thorough literature search. Multiple\ndomains that included were Socio-demographic characteristics such as age,\ngender, nationality, and other information, details of COVID-19 vaccine,\nattitude towards a covid vaccine,  if\nvaccinated or not, type of vaccine taken, factors associated with COVID-19 use,\nattributes influencing the vaccinees, barriers in taking vaccine among\nnon-vaccinees were included in the questionnaire. This research was approved by\nthe IRB of Gulf Medical University and the research committee of the Ministry\nof Health and Emirates Health Service (EHS) of the United Arab Emirates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data were analyzed using SPSS. The results were expressed in frequency and percentage for categorical variables and mean\/median and standard deviation for numerical variables. The Chi-square test was used to determine the association between independent and dependent variables. The level of significance was taken as at p \u2264 0.05<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of 671 who attempted to\nfill out the questionnaire, 22 said they were not willing to participate; hence\nthe response rate for this study was 96.7%. Of the total participants in the\nstudy, around 39% were from the RAK Emirates and 19% were from Ajman emirate.\nResidents from Fujairah and Um al Quwain were relatively low in participation.\n32% were between 31-40 years and only 9% were above 50 years. 56% were males\nand 44% were female among the total participants. More than 50% were at least\nstudied up to a bachelor’s level, and around 61% were married. The details are\ngiven in table -1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Socio-demographic details of the participants.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Frequency<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Place of residence<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Abu Dhabi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

109<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dubai<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sharjah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ajman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fujairah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

RAK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

249<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

UAQ<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Age<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<=20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

21-30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

189<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31-40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

209<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

41-50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

111<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

>50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

58<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gender<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Male<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

283<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Female<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

362<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Education<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Middle school<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

High school<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

157<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Diploma<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bachelor<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

321<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Master<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

115<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PhD<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Marital status<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Single<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

244<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Married<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

395<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

61.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Only 1.6% reported \u2018not\nhealthy\u201d for self-rated health, and more than 80% reported \u201cNo diseases\u201d. The\nmajor diseases reported by the participants were obesity, hypertension,\ndiabetes mellitus, and high cholesterol. Among the participants, 174 (27.9%)\nhad ever been diagnosed with COVID-19; among those diagnosed with COVID-19, 75\n(43.1%) were diagnosed after vaccination; those who were diagnosed after\nvaccination, 67 (89.3%) after the second dose of vaccination. In this study, of\nthe total participants, 627 (96.6%) took vaccination; 160 (25.5%) with some\nside effects; 29 (18.1%) with severe side effects. Among those who did not take\nthe vaccination, 7 (31.8%) were not willing to take the vaccination. The\ndetails are given in Figure 1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Details of Vaccination history.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

The major reason mentioned\nby the participants who were not willing to take the vaccination was \u201cNo trust\nin the vaccine\u201d. Other reasons were allergy, pregnancy, side effects of the\nvaccine, don\u2019t want to take it. There were six statements included about the\nvaccine efficacy, and the perception of those who were vaccinated and not\nvaccinated was taken. In a statement about \u201cworried about the side effects of\nthe vaccine in the future\u201d, 45% of those vaccinated and more than 80% of those\nwho did not vaccinate opined that they strongly agree or agree. About 50% of\nvaccinated participants and 69% of not vaccinated strongly agree or agree with\nthe statement \u201cWorried about the efficacy of the vaccine in the future\u201d. About\n30% of those vaccinated and 69% of those not vaccinated did not believe\nvaccination can prevent COVID-19. About 35% of vaccinated participants and 63%\nof not vaccinated strongly agree or agree with the statement \u201cWorried about the\nefficacy of the vaccine in the future\u201d. About 30% of vaccinated and 69% of not\nvaccinated opined that they are not confident in the vaccine as it is new and\nproduced in a short time. Concerning the statement \u201cbelieve it is possible to\nget a coronavirus infection even after vaccination\u201d, 73.8% of vaccinated and\n87.5% of non-vaccinated agree or strongly agree. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants’ belief about\nthe COVID-19 prevention method was collected using statements that influenced\ntheir non-response to vaccination. 27.3% of the vaccinated and 68.8% of\nnon-vaccinated believed that \u201cpreventive measures keep the virus away, so\nvaccination is not needed\u201d. About 19% of vaccinated and 44% were non-vaccinated\nopined that they did not need vaccination since they already had COVID-19.\nAlso, 33% of vaccinated and 63% of non-vaccinated agree or strongly agree that\n\u201cnatural exposure to corona gives the safest protection\u201d. Irrespective of\nvaccination, more than 90% of participants follow COVID-19 guidelines in my\ncountry to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. 91.5% vaccinated and 75%\nunvaccinated opined that they would \u201cencourage my friends and family members to\nget vaccinated against COVID-19\u201d. This study observed a\nstatistically significant association (p<0.001) between the perception of\nthe vaccine’s side effects and the practice of vaccination, indicating that\nworries about the side effects make people choose the vaccination differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No significant association is observed between the perception of the\nvaccine’s efficacy and the vaccination status. The efficacy of the vaccine has\nnot influenced the practice of vaccination. A statistically significant\nassociation (p<0.001) was observed between the perception that the preventive measures keep the virus\naway and the practice of vaccination. There is a statistically\nsignificant association (p<0.001) between the belief that vaccination cannot prevent COVID-19 and the practice of\nvaccination. This highly affects the acceptance of the vaccine and people opt\nout of vaccinations with this perception. It is strongly believed that vaccination\nis not necessary for people who already had the infection and this study’s\nresults reveal there is a statistically significant association (p<0.05)\namong the respondents\u2019 perception that\nvaccination need not be done since they already had COVID-19 and the\npractice of vaccination. The drop in vaccination is because of this perception.\nWhen new vaccines are introduced, naturally, there are possibilities of\ndifferent perceptions about the trust in them. This study’s results tell us\nthat there is a statistically significant association (p<0.05) between the\nrespondents’ lack of confidence that\nthe vaccine is new and their practice of vaccination. The two groups we\nhave in this study vaccinated or not vaccinated, perceived it differently and\nthe acceptance certainly gets impacted. Because of getting the infection again,\nwe observe no significant association exists between the belief that it is possible to get a\ncoronavirus infection even after vaccination and the practice of\nvaccination. Both sets of people, who were vaccinated or not vaccinated,\nperceived similarly regarding the possibility of being infected. In our study,\nwe realize there is a statistically significant association (p<0.05) between\nthe belief that one will encourage\nfriends and family members to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and the\npractice of vaccination. Health education with scientific evidence from health\nprofessionals would change the perceptions of individuals regarding their\nnatural exposure. Within this study, we see an association (p<0.05) between\nthe belief that natural exposure to\ncorona gives the safest protection and the practice of vaccination. The\nrespondents chose their practice of vaccination with this view impacting\nthoroughly. No association was noticed on the belief that one follows COVID-19 guidelines in the country to prevent the\ncoronavirus’s spread and vaccination status. The vaccine policies were\naccepted well by the crowd (Table 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: Association between vaccination status and Perception of COVID-19 vaccine<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Received vaccination against COVID-19<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 p-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

\n<\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Worried about the side effects of the vaccine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

254<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

95.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

267<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.01<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

316<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

99.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

319<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Worried about the efficacy of the vaccine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

282<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

293<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

287<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

292<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Preventive measures keep the virus away<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

154<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

93.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

165<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

410<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

415<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Believe vaccination cannot prevent COVID-19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

168<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

93.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

179<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

397<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

581<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I will not be vaccinated since I already had COVID-19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

105<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

93.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

112<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

455<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

464<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Not confident in the vaccine as it is new<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

196<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

95.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

206<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

365<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

371<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Believe it is possible to get a coronavirus infection even after vaccination<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

415<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

429<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

147<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

149<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Believe natural exposure to corona gives the safest protection<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

187<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

197<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

377<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

383<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I will encourage my friends and family members to get vaccinated against COVID-19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

517<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

97.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

529<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I follow COVID-19 guidelines in my country to prevent the spread of the coronavirus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

546<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

97.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

561<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D\/N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

SA- Strongly agree; A- Agree; SD- Strongly disagree; D- Disagree; N-Neutral<\/p>\n\n\n

The attitude towards Covid 19 vaccination is given in table 4. Five items were included under the attitude. For those who are vaccinated, all the statements about the attitude, most of the participants strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement. Many participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statements concerning those not vaccinated. The details are given in table 3. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: Vaccination status and Attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Vaccination status<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I believe preventive measures keep the virus away, so vaccination is not needed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

154<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

165<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

138<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

141<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

272<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

274<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I will not be vaccinated since I already had COVID-19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

105<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

112<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

147<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

151<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

308<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

313<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I believe natural exposure to corona gives the safest protection<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

187<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

197<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

165<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

169<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

212<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

214<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I follow COVID-19 guidelines in my country to prevent the spread of the coronavirus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

546<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

93.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

561<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

—<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

—<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I will encourage my friends and family members to get vaccinated against COVID-19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SA\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

517<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

529<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SD\/D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

SA- Strongly agree; A- Agree; SD- Strongly disagree; D- Disagree; N-Neutral<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 4 describes the perception of COVID-19 on daily life, work, and income. Concerning the impact on everyday life, about 70% of vaccinated and 75% not vaccinated highly agreed with the statement. Irrespective of the status of vaccination, more than 68% agree with the statement that \u201cpandemic impact on work\u201d. Another statement was about the \u201cpandemic impact on income\u201d; 59% of vaccinated and 69% of unvaccinated very much agree with this statement. 204 had their \u201cFamily members living with have been diagnosed with COVID-19\u201d. Of the total, who responded to this question, 86 (42.2%) reported with \u201cyes\u201d; more than 50% said at least two members were affected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: Impact of Pandemic health and Vaccination status<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Vaccination status<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pandemic impact on daily life<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Very high\/high<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

393<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

69.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

405<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

99<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

102<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Small\/very small<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pandemic impact on work<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Very high\/high<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

382<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

393<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

95<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

99<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Small\/very small<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pandemic impact on income<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Very high\/high<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

331<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

59.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

342<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

118<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Small\/very small<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

112<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

113<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Perception of risk of infection<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Very high\/high<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

318<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

328<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

166<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

171<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Small\/very small<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Discussion <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the COVID-19 vaccinations for the SARS-CoV-2 virus became\navailable in early 2021, an increase in the publications on COVID-19 vaccine\nadoption and people’s opinions is observed. This study is one of the first few\nto identify and plan the distribution of the pandemic vaccines in the United\nArab Emirates.10-11<\/sup> Understanding how people currently feel about\nvaccines and their level of acceptance is crucial for imagining the future.\nThis study provides a trustworthy collection of data on the degree of vaccine\nacceptability and its characteristics and there is a high response rate across\nthe nation’s multicultural population. Numerous studies that have been\npublished have examined vaccine acceptance rates and found significant regional\nvariation1,2,6,12,13<\/sup>, with rates as high as 97% in Ecuador14<\/sup>\nand as low as less than 25% in the least developed nations. Our study’s\nacceptance percentage of 68.2% is comparable to most international surveys,\nwhich reflect acceptance rates of approximately 70%13<\/sup>, with low\nrates from the Middle East, some African nations, and some European nations.\nAccording to Middle East research, Lebanon has the lowest acceptance percentage\nof the general populace (21.4%).15<\/sup> In a different Saudi Arabian\nstudy, it was discovered that just 24.9% of participants were eager to accept a\nvaccine, with 32.6% hesitating and 42.5% objecting.16<\/sup> The high vaccine acceptance rate\nin the present study can be attributed to the regulations followed in the\ncountry, airline mandates vaccination as 80% of the populace are expatriates,\nand the self-responsibility of the population to prevent getting the infection\nand spread the infection in the community. Doubts about the efficiency\nof vaccines, fears of adverse effects, inaccurate information found online, a\nlack of education, low socioeconomic status, gender parity, etc. are some of\nthe main causes of low vaccine uptake or reluctance noted in surveys conducted\naround the world.13<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results are presented with an incredibly high level of\nconfidence, especially as the majority of respondents were highly qualified\nacademically to offer their open opinion without apprehension for the long-term\nbenefit as a general public. Respondents were evenly distributed throughout all\nage groups and gender. According to Lin et al., the factors that contribute to\nvaccine hesitancy are the same in all nations, states, and subgroups. Vaccine\nacceptability and confidence are largely influenced by vaccination history,\ngovernment trust, and doctor recommendations.17<\/sup> It is reported that\nsettings or situation, society, and vaccine targeted measures are required to\nobtain an increase in vaccine demand.18<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to note that most respondents (> 96%) had\nalready received the immunization while taking part in this study, suggesting\nthe level of prima-facie approval. This is in perfect agreement with the most\nrecent national data, which indicates that 97% of people are fully immunized.19<\/sup>\nThis can be because they are required to take it due to their residency\nrequirements, local engagements for their daily necessities, or employment. The\ndecision to get vaccinated, though, was not legally required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time of the poll, only 4% or so of the respondents had not\nyet had the vaccine. This group might reflect vaccine acceptance or reluctance\npreferences and motivations more closely. Reasons provided were, pregranant, severely ill and not\nwilling to take due to certain reasons related to vaccine and vaccination.\nAnother interesting finding in our study is that over 30% of the subjects had\nalready received a diagnosis of COVID and were in remission. This might have\nhad an indirect impact on how they responded to inquiries about vaccination\nacceptance, effectiveness, potential COVID prevention, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study highlights the link between the vaccination procedure and\nhow the adverse effects of the vaccine are perceived. The natural and\nwidespread side effects and doubts regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines\nmay have been the cause of the reluctance, and widespread education on the\ndevelopment of immunity is probably the best way to support health objectives.13<\/sup>\nAccording to Michael Schwarzinger et al., age of the participants’, sex,  low level of education, previous history of\nlack of adherence to vaccination, not revealing the co-morbid conditions, and low\nlevel of perceived severity of the disease all strongly associated with\nanti-COVID-19 vaccination behavior.20<\/sup> It is common to perceive, with less confidence, that new vaccines, when\nproduced in a short time, may not be effective with their perfection. In a\nChinese study, one of the most significant factors affecting choices for\nCOVID-19 immunizations was vaccine effectiveness. The likelihood of vaccination\nincreased at the same time as a result of other characteristics, such as age,\neducation level, income level, and perceived infection risk.21<\/sup>\nHowever, the responders to this survey separated the immunization procedure\nfrom the vaccine’s effectiveness. This study shows a substantial correlation\nbetween the practice of immunization and the idea that vaccination cannot\nprevent Covid-19. These techniques are always accompanied by an emotional\nconnection. According to Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou et al., vaccine education\ninitiatives must recognize and control pervasive negative feelings while taking\ninto account the various emotional tendencies of the targeted audiences.22<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The belief that vaccination need\nnot be done since one already has had Covid-19 is evident. This definitely\nmight influence the practice of vaccination. Lin et al. suggest that once\nvaccination is in place, the expected reduction in the incidence of cases has\nto be interpreted as because of vaccine intake rather than the percecption on\nless chance of getting the disease, as this might lessen the vaccine uptake.17<\/sup>\nLack of confidence that the vaccine is \u2018new\u2019 has a significant impact on the\npractice of vaccination and we know the perception makes it hard to convince\npeople. COVID-19 vaccine forum hosted by Annals of Internal Medicine and the American\nCollege of Physicians are providing the evidence-based data related to the\nscience, approval processes, and development of clinical recommendations for\nvaccines to bring up confidence.23<\/sup> The study brings the evidence\nthat no significant association exists, and the belief that it is possible to\nget a coronavirus infection even after vaccination has nothing to do with the\npractice of vaccination. Interestingly this is against Rooney et al. describing\npatients who had reduced levels of physical function and fitness post-infection\ncompared with healthy controls. Furthermore, patients demonstrated incomplete\nrecovery of physical function, with some experiencing residual impairments one\nto two years post-infection.24<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is an association between\nthe belief that one will encourage friends and family members to vaccinate\nagainst COVID-19 and their vaccination status. The impacts of having been\ninfected oneself or knowing a friend\/family who had and the desire to protect\noneself or others were also cited but less conclusive. Some studies indicated a\npositive association, while others found no association. One study reported\nonly 55% of those worrying about themselves or family members being infected\nwould be vaccinated.17<\/sup> The concept that natural exposure to corona\ngives the safest protection makes the \u2018choice\u2019 of vaccination differ. Education\nwith scientific evidence from health professionals would only change these\nperceptions.22<\/sup> Studies have shown variable results about vaccine\nhesitancy rates between low, and middle-income countries and high-income\ncountries.25<\/sup> COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the daily life\nof people and irrespective of the vaccination status, respondents, agreed it\nhad disrupted their daily life and work, indirectly impacting their daily\nincome. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study has a few limitations which need to be addressed. To obtain more accurate results, the survey which was intended to understand the qualities of the vaccine, including how well it was received\u2014ideally should have been conducted much earlier, before the vaccination process had started. This is because the respondents’ responses and perceptions of some questions might have changed over time after receiving the vaccine. Future research should also address concerns by including participants from the UAE’s outlying regions and higher-risk populations that may not have been adequately represented in this study. Another drawback of the study’s timing, one year into the pandemic, is the possibility that some survey items may have been accidentally overlooked. Future research may reveal them, allowing the authorities to fully make data-driven decisions. Public health initiatives continue to be the mainstay in encouraging vaccine uptake as the COVID -19 pandemic evolves and due to its significant public health impact. A very small percentage of the population has not received a vaccination despite an effective and efficient vaccination effort in the UAE. To advance vaccination education and awareness, more research is needed to comprehend this vaccine hesitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the total participants in this trial, 627 (96.6%) received vaccinations. 25.5% of those who received the vaccine experienced mild adverse effects, while 18.1% experienced severe negative effects. “No trust in the vaccine” was the main factor keeping the participants from getting the inoculation. Other explanations included allergies, pregnancy, vaccination side effects, and a lack of interest. Concerned about the vaccine’s side effects, precautions to ward off the virus, the belief that vaccination cannot prevent COVID-19, having had COVID-19, lack of confidence in the vaccine, and the belief that natural exposure to corona gives the safest protection were the statistically significant associations with vaccination that were observed. For those who have received vaccinations, the majority of participants disapproved or strongly disagreed with all of the assertions made regarding attitude. Regarding people who aren’t immunized, many participants agreed or strongly agreed with the assertions. Regardless of vaccination status, more than 68% of respondents believe that “pandemic impact on work” and “pandemic impact on income” apply to daily life; 59% of vaccinated respondents and 69% of unvaccinated respondents strongly agree with this statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no funding Sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding Source<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no conflict of ineterest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Harapan H, Wagner AL, Yufika A, Winardi W, Anwar S, Gan AK, Setiawan AM, Rajamoorthy Y, Sofyan H, Mudatsir M. Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Southeast Asia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia. Front Public Health. 2020 Jul 14;8:381. doi: 10.3389\/fpubh.2020.00381. PMID: 32760691; PMCID: PMC7372105.)
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  2. Alqudeimat Y, Alenezi D, AlHajri B, Alfouzan H, Almokhaizeem Z, Altamimi S, Almansouri W, Alzalzalah S, Ziyab AH. Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine and Its Related Determinants among the General Adult Population in Kuwait. Med Princ Pract. 2021;30(3):262-271. doi: 10.1159\/000514636. Epub 2021 Jan 22. PMID: 33486492; PMCID: PMC8089409.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  3. Kreps S, Prasad S, Brownstein JS, Hswen Y, Garibaldi BT, Zhang B, Kriner DL. Factors Associated With US Adults’ Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2025594. doi: 10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2020.25594. Erratum in: JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2030649. PMID: 33079199; PMCID: PMC7576409.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  4. Calder PC, Carr AC, Gombart AF, Eggersdorfer M. Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections. Nutrients. 2020 Apr 23;12(4):1181. doi: 10.3390\/nu12041181. PMID: 32340216; PMCID: PMC7230749.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  5. Triggle CR, Bansal D, Farag EABA, Ding H, Sultan AA. COVID-19: Learning from Lessons To Guide Treatment and Prevention Interventions. mSphere. 2020 May 13;5(3):e00317-20. doi: 10.1128\/mSphere.00317-20. PMID: 32404514; PMCID: PMC7227770.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  6. Wang J, Jing R, Lai X, Zhang H, Lyu Y, Knoll MD, Fang H. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Aug 27;8(3):482. doi: 10.3390\/vaccines8030482. PMID: 32867224; PMCID: PMC7565574.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  7. Lazarus JV, Ratzan SC, Palayew A, Gostin LO, Larson HJ, Rabin K, Kimball S, El-Mohandes A. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2021 Feb;27(2):225-228. doi: 10.1038\/s41591-020-1124-9. Epub 2020 Oct 20. Erratum in: Nat Med. 2021 Jan 11;: PMID: 33082575; PMCID: PMC7573523.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  8. Williams L, Flowers P, McLeod J, Young D, Rollins L, The Catalyst Project Team. Social Patterning and Stability of Intention to Accept a COVID-19 Vaccine in Scotland: Will Those Most at Risk Accept a Vaccine? Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jan 4;9(1):17. doi: 10.3390\/vaccines9010017. PMID: 33406762; PMCID: PMC7824425.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  9. Malik AA, McFadden SM, Elharake J, Omer SB. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Sep;26:100495. doi: 10.1016\/j.eclinm.2020.100495. Epub 2020 Aug 12. PMID: 32838242; PMCID: PMC7423333.
     CrossRef<\/a> <\/li>
  10. Muqattash R, Niankara I, Traoret RI. Survey data for COVID-19 vaccine preference analysis in the United Arab Emirates. Data Brief. 2020 Dec;33:106446. doi: 10.1016\/j.dib.2020.106446. Epub 2020 Oct 22. PMID: 33106773; PMCID: PMC7577918.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  11. Alsuwaidi AR, Al Hosani FI, ElGhazali G, Al-Ramadi BK. The COVID-19 response in the United Arab Emirates: challenges and opportunities. Nat Immunol. 2021 Sep;22(9):1066-1067. doi: 10.1038\/s41590-021-01000-5. Erratum in: Nat Immunol. 2021 Aug 13;: PMID: 34316063.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  12. Sallam M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 16;9(2):160. doi: 10.3390\/vaccines9020160. PMID: 33669441; PMCID: PMC7920465.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  13. Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: A systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Oct;40:101113. doi: 10.1016\/j.eclinm.2021.101113. Epub 2021 Sep 2. PMID: 34490416; PMCID: PMC8411034.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  14. Sarasty O, Carpio CE, Hudson D, Guerrero-Ochoa PA, Borja I. The demand for a COVID-19 vaccine in Ecuador. Vaccine. 2020 Dec 3;38(51):8090-8098. doi: 10.1016\/j.vaccine.2020.11.013. Epub 2020 Nov 6. PMID: 33187765; PMCID: PMC7832521.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  15. Kasrine Al Halabi C, Obeid S, Sacre H, Akel M, Hallit R, Salameh P, Hallit S. Attitudes of Lebanese adults regarding COVID-19 vaccination. BMC Public Health. 2021 May 27;21(1):998. doi: 10.1186\/s12889-021-10902-w. PMID: 34044790; PMCID: PMC8156575.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  16. Abu-Farha R, Mukattash T, Itani R, Karout S, Khojah HMJ, Abed Al-Mahmood A, Alzoubi KH. Willingness of Middle Eastern public to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Saudi Pharm J. 2021 Jul;29(7):734-739. doi: 10.1016\/j.jsps.2021.05.005. Epub 2021 May 31. PMID: 34093059; PMCID: PMC8165039.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  17. Lin C, Tu P, Beitsch LM. Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review. Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Dec 30;9(1):16. doi: 10.3390\/vaccines9010016. PMID: 33396832; PMCID: PMC7823859.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  18. MacDonald NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4. doi: 10.1016\/j.vaccine.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 Apr 17. PMID: 25896383.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  19. National Crisis & Emergency Management Authority. (NCEMA). Available at: https:\/\/covid19.ncema.gov.ae\/en\/page\/about-the-vaccine. Accessed on April 2022.<\/li>
  20. Schwarzinger M, Watson V, Arwidson P, Alla F, Luchini S. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a representative working-age population in France: a survey experiment based on vaccine characteristics. Lancet Public Health. 2021 Apr;6(4):e210-e221. doi: 10.1016\/S2468-2667(21)00012-8. Epub 2021 Feb 6. PMID: 33556325; PMCID: PMC7864787.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  21. Leng A, Maitland E, Wang S, Nicholas S, Liu R, Wang J. Individual preferences for COVID-19 vaccination in China. Vaccine. 2021 Jan 8;39(2):247-254. doi: 10.1016\/j.vaccine.2020.12.009. Epub 2020 Dec 5. PMID: 33328140; PMCID: PMC7719001.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  22. Chou WS, Budenz A. Considering Emotion in COVID-19 Vaccine Communication: Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy and Fostering Vaccine Confidence. Health Commun. 2020 Dec;35(14):1718-1722. doi: 10.1080\/10410236.2020.1838096. Epub 2020 Oct 30. PMID: 33124475.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  23. Laine C, Cotton D, Moyer DV. COVID-19 Vaccine: What Physicians Need to Know. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 17;173(10):830. doi: 10.7326\/M20-6841. Epub 2020 Oct 20. PMID: 33074704; PMCID: PMC7737236.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  24. Rooney S, Webster A, Paul L. Systematic Review of Changes and Recovery in Physical Function and Fitness After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus Infection: Implications for COVID-19 Rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2020 Sep 28;100(10):1717-1729. doi: 10.1093\/ptj\/pzaa129. PMID: 32737507; PMCID: PMC7454932.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  25. Patwary MM, Alam MA, Bardhan M, Disha AS, Haque MZ, Billah SM, Kabir MP, Browning MHEM, Rahman MM, Parsa AD, Kabir R. COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Mar 11;10(3):427. doi: 10.3390\/vaccines10030427. PMID: 35335059; PMCID: PMC8950670.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction The COVID-19 virus is a serious hazard, and its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no4"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53353"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53353\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55049,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53353\/revisions\/55049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}