Skip to main content
PMC home page
BMC Health Services Research logoLink to BMC Health Services Research
. 2022 Apr 12;22:489. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07803-y

Studying SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among health professionals in Tunisia

Nawel Zammit 1,✉, Amani El Gueder 1, Aïcha Brahem 2, Imen Ayouni 3, Rim Ghammam 1, Sihem Ben Fredj 1, Chaima Sridi 2, Asma Chouchene 2, Houda Kalboussi 2, Olfa El Maalel 2, Souhaeil Chatti 2, Jihene Maatoug 1, Hassen Ghannem 1, Néjib Mrizak 2
PMCID: PMC9004208  PMID: 35413911

Abstract

Background

People's lives were seriously affected by the emergence and the spread of the COVID-19 disease. Several vaccines were developed in record time to overcome this pandemic. However, putting an end to this public health problem requires substantial vaccination coverage rate. This latter depends on the acceptance of these vaccines especially by health professionals; the leaders of the current war against COVID-19. In fact, they have a central role in promoting vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2. In the developed countries, hesitancy rates towards these vaccines among health professionals vary from 4.3% to 72%. In the developing countries, few studies focused on this issue.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence and the predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among the Tunisian health professionals.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was led online between the 7th and the 21th of January 2021 among Tunisian health professionals. At least 460 participants were required. Snowball sampling method served to recruit participants. Data were collected using a pre-established and pre-tested questionnaire recorded in a free Google form. The link of the questionnaire was disseminated online to be self-administered anonymously to the participants. The generated online Google Sheet was uploaded and exported to SPSS software for analysis.

Results

Of the 546 responses, 493 were retained. The mean age of participants was 37.4 (± 9.5) years. Females represented 70.2% of participants. Social media represented the most frequently used source of information about COVID-19. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among participants was 51.9% (95% CI: 47.5–56.3)). Female sex, working far from the capital and having concerns about the vaccines components predicted more hesitancy among participants. In contrast, the use of the national COVID-19 information website predicted less hesitancy among them.

Conclusions

The current Tunisian communication plan about COVID-19 vaccines must be reinforced. Social media represent a cost effective communication channel that can serve to reassure Tunisian health professionals regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Special interest should be paid to females, paramedical professionals and those working far from the capital.

Keywords: COVID-19 Vaccines, Health Personnel, Attitude of Health Personnel, Tunisia

Background

The new corona virus disease (COVID-19) has drastically altered people's lives worldwide [1]. One year after declaring this new disease as a Public Health emergency, the number of deaths caused by this new disease exceeded two millions [2]. Measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, travel restrictions and mandatory mask wearing limited people’s freedom, triggered psychological issues, reduced the income of the disadvantaged groups and worsened the existing social and health inequalities [1, 3]. Until now, there is no specific treatment for this new disease. Nonetheless, several vaccines were developed in record time and were authorized for emergency use in a wide range of countries [4]. Indeed, speed vaccination of people is required not only to cut the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) but also to avoid the emergence and the spread of new variants threatening the efficacy of these vaccines [5]. However, tackling this pandemic requires substantial vaccination coverage rate [6]. This latter is conditioned by the acceptance of these vaccines especially by health professionals [7, 8]. In fact, being at the frontline of the war against the SARS-CoV-2 without immunization, expose them to a supplementary risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 and may increase the spread of COVID-19 among the users of healthcare facilities [8]. Indeed, according to a systematic review published in November 2020, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among health professionals did not exceed 45.3% with an overall seroprevalence of 8.7% [9]. Otherwise, health professionals have a central role in promoting vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 as they are considered trustworthy by the general public [10, 11]. Accordingly, the delay in accepting the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among health professionals would slow down the attainment of the required vaccination coverage. The majority of studies led about hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination concerned the general population while fewer studies have focused on health professionals [7]. A scoping review, led mainly in developed countries, reported that the rates of hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers vary from 4.3% to 72% [12]. Reasons behind the hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are also varied [13–16]. North Africa is among the suggested regions where more studies should be led in order to address the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [7]. In Tunisia, a North African country, the national vaccination program contributed with the concomitant demographic, social, and economic transitions in accelerating the epidemiological transition [17–19]. Thanks to mandatory vaccination, this program succeeded in reducing the incidence rate of several communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rubella, mumps and measles with national vaccination coverage rates around 90% [20–22]. The current pandemic represents a new challenge for the Tunisian Health system. During the first wave (March–May, 2020), the prevalence of COVID-19 among health professionals was 14.8% [23]. During the second wave (which reached its peak in 20 January 2021), regarding the delay in obtaining the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the Tunisian government announced a lockdown between 14 and 17 January, the closure of schools between 14 and 24 January, the closure of markets and the delay of cultural manifestations between 18 and 24 January [24]. Meanwhile, Tunisian citizens were invited to register on a national website (evax.tn) in order to freely access to the SARS-Cov-2 vaccines when they will be available [25]. This online registration was launched in 15 January 2021 [26].

Estimating the prevalence and the predictors of hesitancy towards the upcoming SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among Tunisian health professionals would document the extent of this issue in Tunisia, identify most hesitant subgroup and guide local and international health authorities and organizations in their strategy to overcome this global health issue. In this context, the objective of the current study was to determine the prevalence and the predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines hesitancy among a sample of Tunisian health professionals.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study was led online between the 7thand the 21thof January 2021 among Tunisian health professionals in order to evaluate their willingness to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when it will be available in Tunisia.

Study population

All Tunisian health professionals represented the target population. The following formula: n = [(Zα/2) 2 × p x (1-p)]/i2 was used to calculate the required sample size. A proportion (p) of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy of 50%, a precision (i) of 5%, a type one error (α) of 5% and a loss of 20% due to non-eligible participants (not being a Tunisian health professional) were considered which gave a required sample of at least 460 participants.

Given that no updated national list of Tunisian health professionals with contact details was available in Tunisia, random sampling was not possible. Accordingly, the study was led using a snowball sampling. Initially, a multidisciplinary team of two professors, one residency trainee and a Doctor of Dental Medicine disseminated the survey online. They used their own mailing lists to send e-mails and their Facebook profiles to send messages and to post publications in the Facebook groups of Tunisian health professionals (62 Facebook groups were integrated by the investigators). In fact, Facebook is the most popular social media in Tunisia [27]. They targeted Medical Doctors, Pharmacists, Dentists, Health Technicians and Nurses who are graduated or in training. They also recommended to their colleagues in and out of their hospital wards as well as to the participants to disseminate the online survey. In total, almost 2500 e-mails were sent by the investigators with a daily sharing in the Facebook groups of health professionals.

Data collection

The investigators, based on their experience and a literature review, designed a questionnaire in French language, as it is the academic language in Tunisia. The questionnaire included parts exploring socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex), professional characteristics (field of activity, position, sector, geographic location of health activities and direct contact with hospitalized COVID-19 patients), medical history (chronic disease, allergy, vaccination against influenza during the current season), information about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, perceptions and attitudes related to the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Two other experts (a Public Health Professor and an Occupational Professor) who were familiar with the assessment methods of content validity evaluated the items with respect to appropriate wording, grammar, clarity, understandability and relatedness to Tunisian culture. They were also required to review the items with respect to their relevance. The questionnaire was then pre-tested on a convenience sample of 30 health professionals to assess the acceptability and the understandability of the items. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value was 0.511. Unclear items and those that were difficult to understand by two or more health professionals were reformulated taking into account their comments and the experts’ opinion. The final version of the questionnaire was recorded in a free Google form with two sections: one for the consent, the other for the entire questionnaire. A question was added at the end of the form to determine whether the participant has previously responded to the same questionnaire in order to identify duplicated responses. To limit missing data, responses to all questions were mandatory before sending the filled form. The link of the questionnaire was disseminated online to be self-administered anonymously to the participants.

Definition of the hesitancy towards vaccination against SARS-CoV-2

According to the WHO Strategic Advisory Group on Experts (SAGE) on Immunization, vaccine hesitancy refers to a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services [28]. Accordingly, the attitude towards the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was measured using the following question: “When the vaccine against SARS-CoV 2 (the virus responsible for the COVID-19 disease) would be available in Tunisia, will you accept to be vaccinated?”. The possible responses were: “Yes, certainly”, “Yes, probably”, “I do not know yet”, “Probably no”, “It depends on the type of the vaccine”, “Certainly no”, “No I have already contracted the COVID-19”, “No it is contra-indicated for me”.

The responses: “Yes probably”, “I do not know yet”, “Probably no” and “It depends on the type of the vaccine” were re-coded to “yes” to indicate the attitude of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. The responses, “Certainly no”, “No I have already contracted the COVID-19”, “No it is contra-indicated for me” were re-coded to “no” to indicate the attitude of refusal. The response: “Yes, certainly” indicated the attitude of acceptance.

Data analysis

The generated online Google Sheet was uploaded and exported to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 10.0 software (IBM Inc, Chicago, IL) for analysis. Responses of participants who were not Tunisian health professionals were deleted. Descriptive statistics were reported as frequencies for categorical variables and as means and standard deviations for quantitative ones. Differences between groups were examined using the Chi-squared (χ2) test to compare proportions. When the above test was not applicable, categories of multinomial variables were grouped. Univariate binary logistic regression served to estimate the magnitude of the statistical associations while multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. The dependent variable was “SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy”. All factors that were associated with this dependent variable with a significance level less than 25% were included in a multivariable model. Then, a stepwise backward approach was performed. Observations with missing data concerning some variables that were used in the regression models were deleted. Results of the regression models were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Three models were retained. Model 1 represents the second last model including the eventual confounding covariate “age”. Model 2 represents the last model without the covariate “age”. Model 3 excluded the covariate “Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection” because of an eventual convergence failure. All statistical tests were two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

The current study was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the Ethical Committee of Farhat Hached University Hospital (Institutional review board code: 00,008,937). An introducing paragraph explaining the purpose and the conduct of the study preceded the two sections of the Google form. Anonymity of responses was highlighted. Participants had to give consent (using the first section of the Google form) to access to the questionnaire (the second section of the Google form) by clicking on the response “yes” to the following question: “Do you agree to participate in the study?” In case of responding by “No”, the questionnaire was not administered to the user of the link. The response option “I do not want to answer” was added to the questions about sex, age and medical history. Furthermore, to ensure anonymity, first and last names were not collected and e-mail addresses were not collected as well.

Results

A total of 546 responses to the online questionnaire were obtained with 23 refusal and 523 acceptances. Among those who accepted to participate, 28 were not health professionals and two were not Tunisians. Accordingly, the retained participants accounted for 493.

The mean age of participants was 37.4 (± 9.5) years. Females represented 70.2% of participants. Medical Doctors, Dentists, Pharmacists and Paramedical professionals represented respectively 59.2%, 15.8%, 14.2% and 10.8% of participants. As regards the geographic location of their professional activities, 196 (39.8%), 188 (38.1%) and 105 (21.3%) were working respectively in the North, the Center and the South of Tunisia. Whereas, 82 (16.6%) participants reported daily direct contact with COVID-19 patients. More details about the sociodemographic characteristics are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Individual characteristics of participants. (n = 493)

Socio-demographic characteristics n %
  Age
    < 40 years 326 66.1
    ≥ 40 years 167 33.9
  Sex
    Female 346 70.2
    Male 131 26.6
  Grade
    Trainee 102 20.7
    Graduated 391 79.3
  Field of activity
    Medicine 292 59.2
    Dentistry 78 15.8
    Pharmacy 70 14.2
    Paramedical 53 10.8
  Location of activity
    North of Tunisia 196 39.8
    Center of Tunisia 188 38.1
    South of Tunisia 105 21.3
  Sector of activity
    Public 338 68.5
    Private 155 31.4
  Frequency of direct contact with COVID-19 inpatients
    Never 235 47.7
    Sometimes 176 35.7
    Every day 82 16.6
  History of chronic condition
    Yes 101 20.5
    No 368 74.7
    No response 10 2.0
  History of allergy
    Yes 89 18.1
    No 383 77.7
    No response 10 2.0
  Vaccination against influenza during the current season
    Yes 151 30.6
    No 342 69.4
  Sources used to be informed about the SARS-CoV-2
    Social media
      Yes 330 66.9
      No 163 33.1
  Scientific journals
    Yes 285 57.8
    No 208 42.2
  Television channels
    Yes 276 56.0
    No 217 44.0
  Websites of international scientific organizations
    Yes 226 45.8
    No 267 54.2
  The national website of the Ministry of Health
    Yes 199 40.4
    No 294 59.6
  The Tunisian website for information about COVID-19: “Covid.tn”
    Yes 191 38.7
    No 302 61.3
  Radio stations
    Yes 183 27.1
    No 310 62.9
  The Tunisian website of the Observatory of new and emergent diseases
    Yes 127 25.8
    No 366 74.2
  Newspapers
    Yes 96 19.5
    No 397 80.5
  The website of the Pasteur institute of Tunis
    Yes 42 8.5
    No 451 91.5
  The Tunisian website for health professionals: “SAUVE.tn”
    Yes 39 7.9
    No 454 92.1
  Other sources
    Yes 15 3.0
    No 478 97.0
Perceptions
  The upcoming SARS-CoV-2 vaccines contain harmful components
    Yes 48 9.7
    May be 289 58.6
    No 156 31.6
  Lack of information about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines 403 81.7
    Strongly agree 121 24.5
    Agree 282 57.2
    Disagree 65 13.2
    Strongly disagree 25 5.1
  The risk level of infection by SARS-CoV-2
    Low 19 3.9
    Mild 147 29.8
    High 218 44.2
    Very high 109 22.1
  The risk level of complications in case of infection by SARS-CoV-2 105 21.3
    Low 136 27.6
    Mild 252 51.1
    High 81 16.4
    Very high 24 4.9
  Intention towards the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2
    Refusal 62 12.6
    Certainly no 32 6.5
    No, already contracted the COVID-19 30 6.1
    No, because of a medical contra-indication - -
    Hesitancy 256 51.9
    Probably yes 108 21.9
    Do not know yet 96 19.5
    Probably no 47 9.5
    It depends on the type of the vaccine 5 1.0
  Acceptance
    Yes, certainly 175 35.5
Open in a new tab

Focusing on the information sources about SARS-CoV-2, social media were the most consulted by participants followed by scientific journals and the television channels with the frequencies of 66.9%, 57.8% and 56% respectively while 39 (7.9%) participants used the national information website for Tunisian health professionals (SAUVE.tn). The other reported sources of information are detailed in Table 1.

Asking participants about their perceptions revealed that 327 (66.3%) were thinking that they have high or very high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Table 1). Among dentists, this prevalence was 74.4% (Table 2). Nonetheless, 105 (21.3%) were thinking that they risk serious complications in case of infection (Table 1). This prevalence was the lowest among paramedical professionals (Table 2). On the other hand, 337 (68.4%) had concerns about the components of the upcoming vaccines. Otherwise, lack of information about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was reported by 403 (81.7%) of participants (Table 1).

Table 2.

Risks perceptions and intentions towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among participants according to the fields of their activities. (n = 493)

Medical doctor (n = 292) Dentists (n = 78) Pharmacists (n = 70) Paramedical personnel (n = 53) p-value
Perceived risk level of infection by SARS-COV-2 0.124
  High or very high 197(67.5) 58 (74.4) 41(58.6) 31 (58.5)
  Low or mild 95 (32.5) 20 (25.6) 29 (41.4) 22 (41.5)
Perceived risk level of complications in case of infection by SARS-CoV-2 0.395
  High or very high 64 (21.9%) 16 (20.5%) 18 (25.7%) 7 (13.2%)
  Low or mild 228 (78.1%) 62 (79.5%) 52 (74.3%) 46 (86.8%)
Perception of a lack of information about the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 0.194
  Agree or strongly agree 235 (80.5) 70 (89.7) 54 (77.1) 44 (83.0)
  Disagree or strongly disagree 57 (19.5) 8 (10.3) 16 (22.9) 9 (17.0)
Concerns about the components of the upcoming vaccines 0.647
  Yes 202 (69.2%) 56 (71.8%) 46 (65.7%) 33 (62.3%)
  No 90 (30.8%) 22 (28.2%) 24 (34.3%) 20 (37.7%)
Intention towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines 0.103
  Refusal 33 (11.3%) 8 (10.3%) 8 (11.4%) 13 (24.5%) 0.051
  Hesitancy 150 (51.4%) 41 (52.6%) 36 (51.4%) 29 (54.7%) 0.974
  Acceptance 109 (37.3%) 29 (37.2%) 26 (37.1%) 11 (20.8%) 0.131
Open in a new tab

Of the 493 respondents, 256 (51.9%; 95% CI: 47.5–56.3)) reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy while 62 (12.6%; 95% CI: 9.7–15.5) were sure to refuse it and 175 (35.5%; 95% CI: 31.3–39.7) were sure to accept it when it will be available in Tunisia (Table 1). Refusal was the highest among paramedical professionals (Table 2).

Proportion of health professionals under the age of 40 years was significantly superior (72.3%) among those hesitating to get the vaccine than those not hesitating (59.5%) (p = 0.003). Similarly, females represented 74.6% of those who hesitate against 65.4% in those who do not with a p value of 0.047. Concerning the professional activity, working far from the North of Tunisia or in public sector, were significantly associated with more hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV2 vaccination (Table 3). However, having already contracted the COVID-19 was negatively associated with SARS-CoV2 vaccine hesitancy (0.4% among hesitating participants versus 12.2% among those not hesitating (p =  < 0.001)).

Table 3.

Hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines according to the individual characteristics of participants. (n = 493)

(n = 493) Hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines OR, 95% CI
Yes (n = 256) No (n = 237) p
Age 0.003
  ≥ 40 years 71 (27.7) 96 (40.5) 1
  < 40 years 185(72.3) 141 (59.5) 1.8 [1.2–2.6]
Sex 0.047
  Male 59 (23.0) 72 (30.4) 1
  Female 191(74.6) 155 (65.4) 1.5 [1.1–2.2]
Grade 0.263
  Graduated 198(77.3) 193(81.4) 1
  Trainee 58(22.7) 44(18.6) 1.3 [0.8–2.0]
Field of activity 0.974
  Medicine 150(58.6) 142(59.9) 1
  Dentistry 41(16.0) 37(15.6) 0.9 [0.5–1.6]
  Pharmacy 36(14.1) 34(14.3) 0.9 [0.4–1.8]
  Paramedical 29(11.3) 24(10.1) 0.9 [0.4–1.8]
Location of activity 0.020
  North of Tunisia 89(34.8) 107(45.1) 1
  Center of Tunisia 101(39.5) 87(36.7) 1.4 [0.9–2.1]
  South of Tunisia 65(25.4) 40(16.9) 2.0 [1.2–3.2]
Sector of activity 0.025
  Private 69(27.0) 86(36.3) 1
  Public 187(72.4) 151(63.7) 1.5 [1.1–2.3]
Frequency of direct contact with COVID-19 inpatients 0.141
  Every day 39(15.2) 43(18.1) 1
  Sometimes 84(32.8) 92(38.8) 1.0 [0.6–1.7]
  Never 133(52.0) 102(43.0) 1.4 [0.9–2.4]
History of chronic condition 0.666
  No 200(78.1) 178(75.1) 1
  Yes 51(19.9) 50(21.1) 0.9 [0.6–1.4]
History of allergy 0.084
  No 212(82.8) 181(76.4) 1
  Yes 39 (15.2) 50 (21.1) 0.7 (0.4–1.1]
History of infection by the SARS-COV-2  < 0.001
  No 255(99.6) 208 (87.8) 1
  Yes 1 (0.4) 29 (12.2) 0.028 [0.004–0.2]
Vaccination against influenza during the current season 0.274
  No 182(71.4) 157(66.8) 1
  Yes 73(28.6) 78(33.2) 0.8 [0.5–1.2]
Sources used to be informed about the SARS-CoV-2
  Social media 0.026
    No 74 (28.9) 89 (37.6) 1
    Yes 182(71.1) 148(62.4) 1.5 [1.01–2.1]
  Radio stations 0.392
    No 159 (62.1) 151 (63.7) 1
    Yes 97(37.9) 86(36.3) 1.1 [0.7–1.5]
  Television channels 0.096
    No 105 (41.0) 112 (47.3) 1
    Yes 151(59.0) 125(52.7) 1.3 [0.9–1.8]
  The national web site of the Ministry of Health 0.142
    No 159 (62.1) 135 (57.0) 1
    Yes 97 (37.9) 102 (43.0) 0.8 [0.6–1.2]
  The web site of the Pasteur institute of Tunis 0.064
    No 240 (93.8) 211 (89.0) 1
    Yes 16(6.3) 26(11.0) 0.5 [0.3–1.04]
  The Tunisian web site of the Observatory of new and emergent diseases 0.455
    No 189 (73.8) 177 (74.7) 1
    Yes 67(26.2) 60(25.3) 1.1 (0.7–1.6]
  The Tunisian web site for health professionals “SAUVE.tn” 0.027
    No 242 (94.5) 212 (89.5) 1
    Yes 14(5.5) 25(10.5) 0.5 [0.2–0.97]
  The Tunisian web site for information about COVID-19 “Covid.tn” 0.003
    No 172 (67.2) 130 (54.9) 1
    Yes 84(32.8) 107(45.1) 0.6 [0.4–0.8]
  Newspapers 0.161
    No 211 (82.4) 186 (78.5) 1
    Yes 45(14.6) 51(21 .5) 0.8 [0.5–1.2]
  Websites of international scientific organizations 0.490
    No 138 (53.9) 129 (54.4) 1
    Yes 118(46.1) 108(45.6) 1.0 [0.7–1.5]
  Scientific journals 0.463
    No 107 (41.8) 101 (42.6) 1
    Yes 149(58.2) 136(57.4) 1.0 [0.7–1.5]
Perceptions
  Lack of information about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines 0.008
    No 36(14.1) 54(22.8) 1
    Yes 220(85.9) 183(77.2) 1.8 [1.1–2.9]
  Concerns about the components of the upcoming vaccines 0.002
    No 66 (25.8) 90(38.0) 1
    Yes 190(74.2) 147 (62.0) 1.8 [1.2–2.6]
  High or very high risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 0.477
    No 87(34.0) 79(33.3) 1
    Yes 169(66.0) 158(66.7) 1.0 [0.7–1.4]
  High or very high risk of complications in case of infection by SARS-CoV-2 0.061
    No 209(81.6) 179(75.5) 1
    Yes 47(18.4) 58(24.5) 0.7 [0.4–1.1]
Open in a new tab

Perception of a lack of information about the SARS-CoV2 vaccination was positively associated with SARS-CoV2 vaccine hesitancy with a proportion of 85.9% among hesitant participants versus 77.2% in non-hesitant ones (p = 0.008). Use of social media was also positively associated with hesitancy towards the vaccination among participants (6.3% among hesitating participants versus 11% among those not; p = 0.043) contrary to the use of the national website of the Pasteur Institute or the national website for information about COVID-19 “Covid.tn” which were significantly associated with less hesitancy (Table 3).

Otherwise, thinking that the upcoming vaccines may contain harmful components was reported by 74.2% of hesitant professionals versus 62% among the rest of participants (p = 0.002). More details about the hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccination according to the individual characteristics of participants are displayed in Table 3.

Table 4 details the results of the binary logistic regression analysis for the factors related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among participants. The magnitude of associations presented in “model 1” did not differ substantially from those in “model 2” from which the variable age was excluded. This indicate that the age is not an effect modifier. The variation of 20% between the values of the crude and the adjusted odds ratios for age may be due to a confounding effect. Similarly for “model 3” from which, the variable “Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection” was excluded to avoid an eventual convergence failure issue. Indeed, by excluding the variable “age,” the magnitude of associations did not differ substantially from those in “model 2” while working in the public sector and less frequent contact with COVID-19 patients were revealed to also predict more hesitancy among participants. On another note, the three models showed that working in the south of the country predicted the most hesitancy compared to those exercising in the central of Tunisia and with reference to those exercising in the north of the country. Concerns regarding the components of the upcoming vaccines represented another predictor of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy with an adjusted OR comprised between 1.2 and 2.7. On the other hand, the use of the national website for information about COVID-19 (covid.tn) predicted less hesitancy with an adjusted OR of 0.6 [0.4–0.9].

Table 4.

Binary logistic regression analysis for characteristics related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines hesitancy among participants

10 Model 1a Model 2a Model 3a
Variables p-value Crude OR [95% CI] p-value Adjusted OR [95% CI] p-value Adjusted OR [95% CI] p-value Adjusted OR [95% CI]
Age 0.003 0.067 0.056
  ≥ 40 years 1 1 1
  < 40 years 1.8 [1.2–2.6] 1.5 [0.97–2.2] 1.5 [0.98–2.2]
Sex 0.047 0.036 0.013 0.324
  Male - 1 1 - 1 1
  Female 1.5 [1.1–2.2] 1.6 [1.03–2.5] 1.7 [1.1–2.7] 1.2 [0.8–1.9]
Location of activity 0.011 0.009 0.010 0.011
  North of Tunisia - 1 1 - 1 1
  Central of Tunisia 1.4 [0.9–2.1] 1.3 [0.8–2.0] 1.3 [0.8–2.0] 1.3 [0.8–2.0]
  Southern of Tunisia 1.9 [1.2–3.2] 2.3 [1.3–3.9] 2.3 [1.3–3.9] 2.2 [1.3–3.7]
Having been already infected by the SARS-CoV-2  < 0.001  < 0.001  < 0.001
  No - 1 1 - 1
  Yes 0.028 [0.004–0.2] 0.024 [0.003–0.2] 0.024 [0.003–0.2]
Use of the national site for information about COVID-19: covid.tn 0.005 0.015 0.010 0.011
  No - 1 1 - 1 1
  Yes 0.6 [0.4–0.8] 0.6 [0.4–0.9] 0.6 [0.4–0.9] 0.6 [0.4–0.9]
Think that the vaccines that will be available in Tunisia may contain harmful components 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.007
  No - 1 1 - 1 1
  Yes 1.8 (1.2–2.6] 1.8 [1.2–2.7] 1.8 [1.2–2.7] 1.7 [1.2–2.6]
Sector of activity 0.025 0.025
  Private 1 1
  Public 1.5 [1.1–2.3] 1.6 [1.1–2.5]
Frequency of direct contact with COVID-19 inpatients 0.141 0.035
  Every day 1 1
  Sometimes 1.0 [0.6–1.7] 1.1 [0.6–1.9]
  Never 1.4 [0.9–2.4] 1.8 [1.03–3.2]
Open in a new tab

aThe following co-variables were introduced to the initial model: age, gender, location of activity, sector of activity, Frequency of direct contact with COVID-19 inpatients, History of allergy, History of infection by the SARS-CoV-2, use of Social media, use of Television channels, use of The national web site of the Ministry of Health, use of the web site of the Pasteur institute of Tunis, use of the Tunisian web site for health professionals “SAUVE.tn”, use of the Tunisian web site for information about COVID-19, use of newspapers, perception of a lack of information about the SARS-CoV2vaccines, concerns about the components of the upcoming vaccines, perception of a high or very high risk of complications in case of infection by SARS-CoV2

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Tunisian study that aimed at evaluating the acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among all the categories of health professionals working in primary, secondary and tertiary care centers. It would provide a baseline reference for future evaluations. Our results would also serve for neighboring countries and other limited income countries in planning for their vaccination strategies.

Our study highlighted that between the 7th and the 21th of January 2021, 66.3% of Tunisian health professionals were thinking that they have high or very high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while 21.3% were thinking that they risk serious complications in case of infection. Acceptance rate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was 35.5% (95% CI: 31.3–39.7) whereas the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy was 51.9% (95% CI: 47.5–56.3). Working far from the capital (in the south or in the central of Tunisia) and concerns about the vaccines components predicted more hesitancy among participants. In contrast, the use of the national COVID-19 information website predicted less hesitancy among them.

Despite the high rates of risk perception, only 35.5% of healthcare professionals in our sample were readily willing to get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. This low rate of vaccine acceptance is far away from the herd immunity targets [6]. It joins that in USA (36%) [15] and in Qatar (33.8%) [16]. However, it is lower than those in France (76,9%) [29], Italy (67%) [14] and Greece (78.5%) [30] and higher than those in several Arab countries [16]. Among paramedical participants, this rate was of 20.8%. Low vaccination acceptance rates were found among non-physician healthcare workers in other countries [31]. Otherwise, the hesitancy rate (51.9%) revealed by the current study was higher than that reported after an online opinion survey conducted among the same target population between the 10th and the 20th of January 2021 (33.6%). Nonetheless, this opinion survey showed a higher refusal rate of 23.5% [32]. The used sampling method during this online opinion survey was not reported. However, repartition of participants from the different fields of activities was similar to that observed in our study [32].

As reported in previous studies [33], participants were mostly females. The trend of feminization in the Tunisian health sector may explain somewhat this female predominance [34]. Analyzing hesitancy among participants according to the sex showed that females were less willing than males to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. This result is harmonious with several other studies [12]. The higher male acceptance of vaccine may be due to a greater propensity for risk taking [35]. This also could be related to concerns among females about higher risks of induced autoimmune diseases or fertility problems as it was spread on social media [36, 37].

Older respondents were significantly less hesitant to uptake the SARS-COV-2 vaccine. However, having a chronic condition or allergy did not seem to contribute to this hesitancy among them. A recent scoping review reported that individuals of older age are more likely to accept COVID-19 vaccines [12]. This was explained by a perception of greater vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection but also by higher education and greater experience in healthcare [12]. Indeed, among our participants, those who were trainees were more likely to be hesitant than those who have graduated.

Having its professional activity far from the north of the country (where is located the capital) predicted more hesitancy among participants. In line with this result, lower vaccination rates among deprived groups were observed in several surveys [15, 38, 39]. More efforts should be provided in the Tunisian underserved regions, especially in the south, in order to overcome regional disparities in terms of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Professionals from private sector were significantly less hesitant to get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. This joins the results of a study led in Hong Kong [40]. This may be explained by economic reasons. In fact, in private sector; sick leave in case of COVID-19 episode is not regularly paid in Tunisia.

More frequent contact with COVID-19 patients was associated with less hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among participants. Indeed, a realistic risk perception allows the implementation of voluntary preventive behaviors [33]. On another note, having been previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 predicted less hesitancy among participants. Divergent results were reported regarding the association between previous COVID-19 infection and willingness to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine [41–43]. These divergent attitudes may be explained by the lack of knowledge about the duration of protective immunity after infection by this new virus [44].

Among participants, 81.7% reported lack of information about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Social media were the most used information source by them, which joins the results of an Egyptian study [45]. Lack of information and use of social media to be informed about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were both significantly associated with more hesitancy towards these vaccines among participants. These results corroborate those of similar studies led in Egypt and Italia [11, 21] [14, 46]. Concerns about the vaccines components represented another predictor of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among participants. In fact, doubts regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines safety among health professionals were reported in several countries such Italy [14], Democratic republic of Congo [39] and Egypt [45]. Differently, the use of the official national websites was significantly associated with less hesitancy rates among participants. Similar result was observed in Saudi Arabia [41]. Indeed, improved information on vaccines has been shown to increase vaccines’ acceptance [47].

Focusing on the vaccination campaign in Tunisia, we can note that although the launch of the online registration to get the vaccine since 15 January 2021 [25], the vaccination did not start before 13 March 2021. In fact, there were difficulties to obtain vaccines doses [48]. Health professionals represented the first priority group [26]. The concomitant communication plan included a first step of registration promotion during February 2021 with disinformation countering via mass media and social media. The second step began in March 2021. It aims to facilitate registration of people and to inform them about where and when they can beneficiate from the vaccine [26]. After one year of the onset of the vaccination campaign, proportion of vaccinated health professionals is still unavailable [25, 26, 49]. In addition, the incidence of COVID-19 among health professionals does not figure on the periodic national reports [25, 26, 49]. As of 7 March 2022, four reports were published (since September 2021) about the recorded side effects among the vaccinated people [50]. However, the content of these reports was not disseminated through the official website of the ministry of health [26] or the national vaccination portal [25].

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine scarcity in Tunisia and poor resources [51] should not discourage policy makers to implement an effective information campaign. Involving health professionals, especially Public Health specialists, in this campaign would increase confidence in the vaccines, as they are experts in prevention methods. Involving partners from the other sectors such as anthropologists, artists and national leaders is also recommended. Sharing updated information with health professionals during periodic sessions would encourage hesitant ones to uptake the vaccine. Especially, females, the youngest ones, paramedical professionals and those in the underserved regions. The content of these sessions should focus on the severity of COVID-19 episodes and the impact of adherence to self-protective behaviors [52]. To increase confidence in the vaccines, the broadcast messages should report the development methods and the protection mechanisms of the SARS-CoV2 vaccines. Organizing vaccination sessions in the occupational health centers would encourage these groups to uptake the vaccine. Facebook represent another way for disseminating valid messages and tackling misinformation about the vaccines, especially that it represents the most famous social media platform in Tunisia [16]. Engaging health care professionals in social media to counter the vaccines’ related misinformation would improve the vaccine acceptance among the other health professionals and the general population as well. In fact, the general population considers them trustworthy.

More solidarity at the international level is required for a global COVID-19 vaccine equity. Otherwise, we risk the emergence and the spread of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 which could threaten vaccinated and not vaccinated people worldwide.

Results of the current study should be interpreted with taking into account some limitations. Firstly, the cross sectional nature of the study did not allow to report causal relationships but only statistical associations. Besides, random sampling was not possible as no lists of national or regional health professionals were available. However, the required sample size was reached. Moreover, although that Public Health professionals were not represented in our sample because of their reduced number in Tunisia, the main categories of the health professionals were represented. Finally, attitudes and perceptions were self-reported by participants, which might lead to a social desirability bias. Nonetheless, data were collected anonymously and participation was voluntary.

Conclusion

An effective national information campaign is required to reassure the Tunisian health professionals regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Females, the youngest ones, paramedical professionals and those in the underserved regions deserve more attention. Social media would represent a cost effective tool for this campaign.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019

SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Authors’ contributions

The authors NZ and AB designed the work. NZ, AB, AE and IA disseminated the online survey. RG, SBF, CS and AC participated in data analysis and interpretation. NZ and AE drafted the work. IA, JM, HK, OM, SC, HG and NM revised it. HG supervised all the steps of the manuscript editing. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript, agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to limitations of ethical approval involving the patient data and anonymity but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The current study was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The procedures of the study, as described, were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of University Hospital Farhat Hached (Institutional review board code: 00008937). Participants gave informed consent via an online form at the beginning of the survey, which was approved by the ethics committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Nawel Zammit, Email: nawelzommit@gmail.com.

Amani El Gueder, Email: amaniielgueder@gmail.com.

Aïcha Brahem, Email: brahemaicha@gmail.com.

Imen Ayouni, Email: eman.layouni@gmail.com.

Rim Ghammam, Email: ghammam.rim2013@gmail.com.

Sihem Ben Fredj, Email: sihembenfredj2015@gmail.com.

Chaima Sridi, Email: chaima_sdi@yahoo.com.

Asma Chouchene, Email: dr.chouchane@gmail.com.

Houda Kalboussi, Email: drhoudakalboussi@hotmail.fr.

Olfa El Maalel, Email: elmaalelolfa@gmail.com.

Souhaeil Chatti, Email: chattisouhaielsc@gmail.com.

Jihene Maatoug, Email: jihenmaatoug3107@gmail.com.

Hassen Ghannem, Email: hassen.ghannem@rns.tn.

Néjib Mrizak, Email: najib.mrizek@rns.tn.

References

  • 1.Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review International. J Surg [Online] 2020;78:185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. [Online]  https://covid19.who.intAccessed: 19 April 2021
  • 3.Smith Jervelund S, Eikemo TA. The double burden of COVID-19. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49(1):1–4. doi: 10.1177/1403494820984702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mellet J, Pepper MS. A COVID-19 Vaccine: Big Strides Come with Big Challenges. Vaccines. 2021;9(1):39. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9010039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gómez CE, Perdiguero B, Esteban M. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Impact in Global Vaccination Programs against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Vaccines. 2021;9(3):243. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9030243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bartsch SM, O’Shea KJ, Ferguson MC, Bottazzi ME, Wedlock PT, Strych U, et al. Vaccine Efficacy Needed for a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic as the Sole Intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):493–503. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sallam M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Life Sci. 2020. 10.20944/preprints202012.0717.v1Accessed 14 Mar 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 8.Persad G, Peek ME, Emanuel EJ. Fairly Prioritizing Groups for Access to COVID-19 Vaccines. JAMA. 2020;324(16):1601. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.18513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, Bilali A, Kaitelidou D. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:120–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Al Awaidy ST, Khamis F. Preparing the Community for a Vaccine Against COVID-19. Oman Medical Journal. 2020;35(6):e193–e193. doi: 10.5001/omj.2020.130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Statement for healthcare professionals: How COVID-19 vaccines are regulated for safety and effectiveness. [Online] https://www.who.int/news/item/11-06-2021-statement-for-healthcare-professionals-how-covid-19-vaccines-are-regulated-for-safety-and-effectivenessAccessed: 22 July 2021
  • 12.Biswas N, Mustapha T, Khubchandani J, Price JH. The Nature and Extent of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers. Journal of Community Health. [Online] 2021; 10.1007/s10900-021-00984-3Accessed 27 April 2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 13.Roy B, Kumar V, Venkatesh A. Health Care Workers’ Reluctance to Take the Covid-19 Vaccine: A Consumer-Marketing Approach to Identifying and Overcoming Hesitancy. Nejm Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery. [Online] 2020; 10.1056/CAT.20.0676Accessed 21 April 2021
  • 14.Di Gennaro F, Murri R, Segala FV, Cerruti L, Abdulle A, Saracino A, et al. Attitudes towards Anti-SARS-CoV2 Vaccination among Healthcare Workers: Results from a National Survey in Italy. Viruses. 2021;13(3):371. doi: 10.3390/v13030371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shekhar R, Sheikh AB, Upadhyay S, Singh M, Kottewar S, Mir H, et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Health Care Workers in the United States. Vaccines. 2021;9(2):119. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Qunaibi E, Basheti I, Soudy M, Sultan I. Hesitancy of Arab Healthcare Workers towards COVID-19 Vaccination: A Large-Scale Multinational Study. Vaccines. 2021;9(5):446. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ben Romdhane H, Haouala H, Belhani A, Drissa H, Kafsi N, Boujnah R, et al. Epidemiological transition and health impact of cardiovascular disease in Tunisia. Tunis Med. 2005;83(Suppl 5):1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Defo BK. Demographic, epidemiological, and health transitions: are they relevant to population health patterns in Africa? Global Health Action. 2014;7(1):22443. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.22443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aounallah-Skhiri H, Ben Romdhane H, Maire B, Elkhdim H, Eymard-Duvernay S, Delpeuch F, et al. Health and behaviours of Tunisian school youth in an era of rapid epidemiological transition. East Mediterr Health J. 2009;15(5):1201–1214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Romdhane HB, Khaldi R, Oueslati A, Skhiri H. Transition épidémiologique et transition alimentaire et nutritionnelle en Tunisie. : 23.
  • 21.Development Projects : Additional Financing for Tunisia COVID-19 Response Project - P175785. [Online] World Bank. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P175785Accessed: 19 July 2021
  • 22.La transition sanitaire. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2005;11(1): 11. [PubMed]
  • 23.Harizi C, Cherif I, Najar N, Osman M, Mallekh R, Ayed OB, et al. Characteristics and prognostic factors of COVID-19 among infected cases: a nationwide Tunisian analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2021;21(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05844-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.The COVID-19 Epidemic in Tunisia, in Numbers – Inkyfada. [Online] Available from: https://inkyfada.com/en/2021/02/26/dashboard-covid-19/Accessed: 7 March 2021
  • 25.Vaccin anti coronavirus. [Online] Available from: https://www.evax.tn/home.xhtml#inscriptionAccessed: 7 March 2021
  • 26.Accueil - Ministère de la santé publique. [Online] Available from: http://www.santetunisie.rns.tn/fr/Accessed: : 7 March 2021
  • 27.Social Media Stats Tunisia. [Online] StatCounter Global Stats. Available from: https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/tunisiaAccessed: 19 July 2021
  • 28.MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161–4164. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gagneux-Brunon A, Detoc M, Bruel S, Tardy B, Rozaire O, Frappe P, et al. Intention to get vaccinations against COVID-19 in French healthcare workers during the first pandemic wave: a cross-sectional survey. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:168–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.11.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Papagiannis D, Rachiotis G, Malli F, Papathanasiou IV, Kotsiou O, Fradelos EC, et al. Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccination among Greek Health Professionals. Vaccines. 2021;9(3):200. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9030200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Crawshaw J, Konnyu K, Castillo G, van Allen Z, Grimshaw J, Presseau J. Factors affecting healthcare worker COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and uptake: a living behavioural science evidence synthesis (v2, May 18th, 2021). : 53.
  • 32.Résultat du sondage – Sauve.tn. [Online] https://sauve.tn/resultat-du-sondage/Accessed: 21 April 2021
  • 33.Puci MV, Nosari G, Loi F, Puci GV, Montomoli C, Ferraro OE. Risk Perception and Worries among Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from an Italian Survey. Healthcare. [Online] Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI); 2020;8(4). Available from: 10.3390/healthcare8040535Accessed 24 July 2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 34.Noureddine A, Hajer AA-S. Démographie médicale en Tunisie: état actuel et perspectives d’avenir. : 42.
  • 35.Turner C, McClure R. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2003;10(3):123–130. doi: 10.1076/icsp.10.3.123.14560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Green MS, Abdullah R, Vered S, Nitzan D. A study of ethnic, gender and educational differences in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in Israel – implications for vaccination implementation policies. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 2021;10(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s13584-021-00458-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rzymski P, Zeyland J, Poniedziałek B, Małecka I, Wysocki J. The Perception and Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccines: A Cross-Sectional Study in Poland. Vaccines. 2021;9(4):382. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9040382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.The OpenSAFELY Collaborative, Curtis HJ, Inglesby P, Morton CE, MacKenna B, Walker AJ, et al. Trends and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 vaccine recipients: a federated analysis of 57.9 million patients’ primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY. [Online] Public and Global Health, 2021 Jan [Accessed: 27th April 2021]. Available from: doi:10.1101/2021.01.25.21250356Accessed 27 April 2021
  • 39.KabambaNzaji M, KabambaNgombe L, Ngoie Mwamba G, BanzaNdala DB, MbidiMiema J, LuhataLungoyo C, et al. Acceptability of Vaccination Against COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Pragmat Obs Res. 2020;Volume11:103–109. doi: 10.2147/POR.S271096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wang K, Wong ELY, Ho KF, Cheung AWL, Chan EYY, Yeoh EK, et al. Intention of nurses to accept coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and change of intention to accept seasonal influenza vaccination during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey. Vaccine. 2020;38(45):7049–7056. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Barry M, Temsah M-H, Alhuzaimi A, Alamro N, Al-Eyadhy A, Aljamaan F, et al. COVID-19 vaccine confidence and hesitancy among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional survey from a MERS-CoV experienced nation. [Online] Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 2020 Dec. 10.1101/2020.12.09.20246447Accessed 28 April 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 42.Gerussi V, Peghin M, Palese A, Bressan V, Visintini E, Bontempo G, et al. Vaccine Hesitancy among Italian Patients Recovered from COVID-19 Infection towards Influenza and Sars-Cov-2 Vaccination. Vaccines. 2021;9(2):172. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amin DP, Palter JS. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among healthcare personnel in the emergency department deserves continued attention. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. [Online] 2021; 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.01.089Accessed 2 May 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 44.Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Kennedy RB. SARS-CoV-2 immunity: review and applications to phase 3 vaccine candidates. The Lancet. 2020;396(10262):1595–1606. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32137-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hussein AAM, Galal I, Makhlouf NA, Makhlouf HA, Abd-Elaal HK, Kholief KM, et al.A national survey of potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in healthcare workers in Egypt. [Online] Public and Global Health, 2021 Jan. 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249324Accessed 19 July 2021.
  • 46.Aam H, I G, Na M, Ha M, Hk A-E, Km K, et al. A national survey of potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in healthcare workers in Egypt. 2021; 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249324Accessed: 9 May 2021.
  • 47.Saied SM, Saied EM, Kabbash IA, Abdo SAE. Vaccine hesitancy: Beliefs and barriers associated with COVID‐19 vaccination among Egyptian medical students. Journal of Medical Virology. [Online] 2021; jmv.26910. 10.1002/jmv.26910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 48.Roser M, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Hasell J. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data. [Online] 2020; Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/tunisiaAccessed: 21st April 2021
  • 49.En chiffres. Suivez la progression de la vaccination contre le Covid-19 en Tunisie. [Online] https://inkyfada.com/fr/2021/07/01/vaccination-covid-19-tunisie-chiffres/. Accessed 7 Mar 2021.
  • 50.Bulletins. [Online] Available from: http://www.pharmacovigilance.rns.tn/newslettersAccessed: 7th March 2021
  • 51.COVAX roll-out - Tunisia. [Online]  https://www.gavi.org/covax-vaccine-roll-out/tunisiaAccessed: 24 July 2021
  • 52.Lin Y-J, Yen C-F, Chang Y-P, Wang P-W. Comparisons of Motivation to Receive COVID-19 Vaccination and Related Factors between Frontline Physicians and Nurses and the Public in Taiwan: Applying the Extended Protection Motivation Theory. Vaccines. 2021;9(5):528. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to limitations of ethical approval involving the patient data and anonymity but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from BMC Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES