Belarusian Healthcare Professionals’ Views on Monkeypox and Vaccine Hesitancy

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Despite the low transmission risk of Monkeypox (mpox) in Belarus, this study is vital as it contributes to our understanding of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals (HCPs). It aims to assess vaccination perceptions and evaluate the willingness to pay for the vaccine among Belarusian HCPs, thereby enhancing pandemic preparedness. Methods: in October 2022, a cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted among Belarusian HCPs using a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). Invitations were disseminated via social media platforms using a snowball sampling method. The SAQ encompassed various categories, including sociodemographic details, medical history, sources of mpox information, perceived and factual mpox knowledge, and perceptions of the mpox vaccine according to the health belief model (HBM), mpox vaccine acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP). Results: while a large proportion of respondents had good knowledge of mpox epidemiology and its clinical manifestations, their awareness of available vaccines and treatment options was limited. Consequently, a significant correlation was found between the history of influenza vaccination and mpox-related knowledge. Furthermore, the study showed that just over half of the participants (51.4%) were willing to receive the mpox vaccine if offered for free, safely, and effectively, with their decision largely influenced by perceived benefits (Spearman’s rho = 0.451) and cues to action (Spearman’s rho = 0.349). However, a considerable degree of hesitancy (30.6%) and resistance (18.1%) towards the mpox vaccine was observed, underscoring the need for targeted interventions to address these issues. Conclusions: this study highlights a significant knowledge gap among Belarusian HCPs about mpox vaccines and treatments, despite a general awareness of the disease’s epidemiology and symptoms, and it underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance mpox knowledge and vaccine acceptance.

Related collections

Most cited references 45

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

(2013)

0 comments Cited 5647 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The Health Belief Model and Preventive Health Behavior

Irwin Rosenstock (1974)

0 comments Cited 404 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger … (2007)

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.