Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0275922. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275922

Acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine among Nepalese population: A cross-sectional study

Suresh Dahal 1,*, Srishti Pokhrel 1, Subash Mehta 1, Supriya Karki 1, Harish Chandra Bist 1, Dikesh Kumar Sahu 1, Nimesh Lageju 2, Sagar Panthi 2, Durga Neupane 2, Ashish Shrestha 1, Tarakant Bhagat 1, Santosh Kumari Agrawal 1, Ujwal Gautam 1
Editor: Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi3
PMCID: PMC9584529  PMID: 36264889

Abstract

Introduction

COVID-19 is an emerging infectious disease with a high transmission rate and substantial deaths. Various vaccines have been developed to combat it. This study is aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the Nepalese population through a web-based survey.

Materials and methods

This is a web-based cross-sectional descriptive study of Nepalese people 18 years and above from different regions of Nepal who use social media (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) as well as instant messaging applications (Messenger, Viber, WhatsApp). The duration of the study was 3 months from 1st June 2021 to 31st August 2021. The sampling technique used was self-selected non-probability sampling. A validated questionnaire had been taken to record the data.

Results

A total of 307 participants were included in the study. About three-fourths of participants 231 (75.2%) had not been vaccinated while 76 (24.8%) had been vaccinated with COVID -19 vaccine. Out of 231 non-vaccinated participants, most of participants 213 (92.2%) had shown acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. More than two-thirds of participants believed that the vaccine would protect them, their family members, and the community from having COVID-19 in the future. Very few participants 18 (7.2%) were hesitant to receive the vaccine against COVID-19. About two-thirds of participants were being afraid of adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine while more than half of participants hesitated due to lack of enough information regarding COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusion

This study can aid in the planning of vaccination campaigns and the direction of future public health efforts aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Introduction

COVID-19 is an infectious illness that was discovered in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei Province, Central China. A quick outbreak with a high rate of transmission and significant mortality has already been documented globally, impacting 216 nations, regions, or territories [1, 2]. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed the COVID-19 outbreak a worldwide pandemic [3]. The first incidence was verified in Nepal on January 23, 2020. As of June 11, 2021, there have been 601,678 recorded cases and 8238 documented fatalities [4]. Several modeling studies were initiated during the early stages of the outbreak to assess the pandemic and the effectiveness of multiple population-wide strategies, such as lockdown, social distancing, quarantine, testing, contact tracing, and media-related awareness, among others, to mitigate COVID-19 spread [5, 6]. Nonetheless, despite such attempts, the epidemic remains uncontrollable. Although personal preventive measures taken by ordinary persons are critical to controlling the development of this infectious illness, immunization is a crucial protective strategy against COVID-19 [7].

Vaccines not only give individual protection to people who have been immunized, but they can also provide communal protection by limiting disease spread throughout a population. A SARS-CoV-2 vaccination that is successful will minimize morbidity and death while also allowing for significant easing of physical separation rules [8].

As of February 2021, over 70 vaccines had been tested in human clinical trials, including 20 in phase III studies [9, 10]. Furthermore, various vaccines have already been licensed in several countries, and immunization campaigns are underway in practically every region of the world. Understanding the public’s worries about the COVID-19 vaccination is critical for planning optimal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among the general public [11, 12].

Nepal’s government has begun vaccination of front-liners with 1 million doses of COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccines AZD1222 (Covishield®) supplied by India’s government under the Vaccine Maitri program, among other COVID-19 vaccinations authorized for broad distribution [13]. Similarly, immunization of Vero cells made by Sinovac Company China began on April 9, 2021, after China of Nepal contributed 1 million vaccinations. On June 28, 2021, the second dosage of Vero cell vaccination began [14].

The immunization against COVID-19 was supposed to be done in two stages. On January 27, 2021, the first phase of vaccination for frontline medical staff, sanitation workers, ambulance drivers, and security officials began in all 77 districts of Nepal. The first phase of the COVID-19 immunization program was completed on February 6, 2021, with about 184,857 persons receiving doses [15]. The effectiveness of this vaccination against symptomatic COVID-19 infection is reported to be 63.09% [16].

In one of the narrative reviews, data on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were retrieved from surveys in 114 countries/territories where the acceptance rate of Nepal was among the highest (97%) in Asia along with Vietnam [17]. However, in a survey done among health care workers in Nepal, over one-third of the sample population was skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine, indicating that research on these themes is critical for effective immunization campaigns [18].

A maximum of 2,861,314 vaccine shots has been delivered as of June 7, 2021 [19]. Vaccine acceptance encompasses a range of actions and views, ranging from outright denial of all vaccines to active support for vaccination recommendations. Vaccination hesitation is a subset of this spectrum in which people dispute the safety or need of a specific vaccine [20]. The World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) defines vaccine hesitancy (VH) as a "delay in acceptance or refusal of immunization despite the availability of vaccination services" [11]. While ensuring the effective and fair delivery of vaccinations is a significant governmental concern, ensuring population acceptability is as critical. Acceptance of vaccinations and faith in the organizations that deliver them are likely to be major factors of any immunization campaign’s success [21].

Estimation of vaccine acceptance rates can be helpful to plan actions and intervention measures necessary to increase awareness and assure people about the safety and benefits of vaccines, which in turn would help to control virus spread and alleviate the negative effects of this unprecedented pandemic [22, 23].

Several studies have been conducted to assess the public views on the COVID-19 vaccination, as well as vaccine hesitancy. Different national surveys, as well as global surveys, have been done to assess the acceptance and hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccine [24]. Evaluation of attitudes and acceptance rates towards COVID-19 vaccines can help to initiate communication campaigns that are much needed to make the vaccination program successful [25].

The objective of this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the Nepalese population through a web-based survey. The results of this study can be utilized in planning vaccination campaigns and guiding future public health efforts that aim to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.

Materials and methods

Study setting, population and design

This is a web-based cross-sectional descriptive study comprised of Nepalese people from different regions of Nepal who use social media (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) and instant messaging applications (WhatsApp, Viber). The sampling technique used was self-selected non-probability sampling. Nepalese people from age 18 years and above who were not vaccinated, and who were not willing to take were included. People who didn’t use social media, who were under 18 years of age, and who didn’t give consent for the study were excluded. The duration of the study was 3 months from 1st June 2021 to 31st August 2021.

Study tools

A variety of tools, guidelines and other material were examined and reviewed for the formulation of questionnaires. Following that, the authors collaborated to create a draft questionnaire, which was then evaluated by study team members, topic specialists, researchers, and policymakers to guarantee the content validity. Priority was given to information considered useful to the general public when constructing the surveys. We chose realistic and commonly encountered questions for the surveys based on the experiences of experts working in COVID-19 Hospitals. The questionnaire was then pre-tested among 10 random people, and required adjustments and amendments were made in the final form, such as simplifying the wording and adding the Nepali translation of the questionnaire. Two people who were proficient in both languages translated the English questionnaire into Nepali. Back-translation of the Nepali version of the questionnaire into English was used to guarantee that the original meaning of the questions was retained. Subject specialists examined the questionnaire’s facade and consensual validity. The questionnaire was made available in both languages.

The questionnaire consisted of 4 sections based on demographic profile, vaccination status, willingness for vaccination, and hesitancy towards it respectively. The first section included information about gender, age, section, education level, and occupation of each respondent to examine heterogeneity across demographic strata. The second section included vaccinated status, and whether the respondent had been vaccinated or unvaccinated. The third section and fourth section consisted of six and seven Likert scale-based questions asking the reasons for acceptance or hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccine respectively.

Then the final questionnaire was distributed to the people randomly via social media (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) and instant messaging applications (WhatsApp, Viber) in the form of Google sheets.

Outcome measures

The outcome measures were the willingness of the Nepalese population for vaccination against COVID-19, reasons for acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine, and reasons for the hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine.

Sample size calculation

In this study, p = 13.7% (Based on estimate of prevalence of hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccine among general population in India according to Khan et al. [27]) z = 1.96 (at 95% confidence level), d = 5% (Absolute error). where, n = Sample Size; p = Proportion of the event in the population; q = 1-p, d = Acceptable margin of error in estimating the true population proportion; Z = value at 95% confidence level.

Now using the following formula to estimate the sample size, = Z2*p*q/d2 = 181.6 ~ 181

Adding 10% for non-respondents: Sample size = 181 + 10% of 181 = 199.1 ~ 200

The total sample size as calculated was 200. However, we collected as many responses as we could.

Ethics statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants before enrolling in the study. The information collected from this research project was kept confidential. At no point in time, any of the information was disclosed outside the investigator’s circle.

The study was approved by the Institute Review Committee, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan. All study was carried out in line with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Data analysis

The data collected was imported from Google sheets and then transferred into SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) v.11.5 software for statistical analysis. Graphical methods like bar diagrams and tabular presentations were used to describe different categorical variables. Frequency and proportion were calculated to describe the categorical variables of the study. Mean (standard deviation) was calculated to describe the continuous variables of the study. For skewed data, median (IQR) was presented.

Results

Among 325 respondents in the online study, 320 (98.2%) people agreed to participate in it.

Out of 320 participants, 307 were only included for analysis while the remaining were filtered as per exclusion criteria (11 were of age<18 years, 2 were of Indian nationality). More than half of the respondents 173 (56.4%) were male. The mean age of the participants was 24.15 (6.8). Most of the participants were from province 1 (21.8%). Based on the geographical distribution, almost half of the participants 54.7% were from the Terai region and had a graduation level of education (50.2%). In terms of occupation, the majority of them were students 190 (61.9%). (Table 1)

Table 1. Sociodemographic data of participants(n = 307).

Variables N (%)
Socio-demographic profile
1. Gender Male 173 (56.4%)
Female 134 (43.6%)
2. Mean age (SD) Acceptance mean age 24.37 (6.9)
Hesitant mean age 21.56 (2.8)
Total mean age 24.15 (6.8)
3. Province distribution Province 1 67 (21.8%)
Madhesh Province 26 (8.5%)
Bagmati Province 59 (19.2%)
Gandaki Province 48 (15.6%)
Lumbini Province 54 (17.6%)
Karnali Province 3 (1%)
Sudur Paschim Province 50 (16.3%)
4. Geographical distribution Mountain region 22 (7.2%)
Hilly region 117 (38.1%)
Terai region 168 (54.7%)
5. Education level Informal education 5 (1.6%)
Secondary 10 (3.3%)
Higher secondary 107 (34.9%)
Graduate 154 (50.2%)
Above graduate 31 (10.1%)
6. Occupation Employed 104 (33.9%)
Unemployed 13 (4.2%)
Students 190 (61.9%)
Open in a new tab

Vaccination status:

Out of 307 participants, about three fourth of participants 231 (75.2%) had not been vaccinated while 76 (24.8%) had been vaccinated with COVID -19 vaccine.

Out of 231 non-vaccinated participants, most of the participants 213 (92.2%) had shown acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine if made available however very few have shown 18 (7.8%) hesitancy to get it.

Among the acceptance group (213), participants agreed to several factors for acceptance. More than two-thirds of the participants 179 (84%) completely agreed that the vaccine would protect them from having COVID-19 in the future and nearly half of the participants 104 (48.8%) completely agreed that the vaccine would decrease the complications from COVID-19. Similarly, more than three fourth of the participants 172 (80.8%) agreed that vaccination would protect their family members and also agreed that vaccination would protect the community against having COVID-19 in the future165 (77.5%).

More than half of the participants 111 (52.1%) completely agreed that getting vaccinated would ease the precautionary measure including lockdown, quarantine, and travel ban, and would make daily life normal while very few 3.8% disagreed.

The results are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among Nepalese population.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine:

Very few participants 18 (7.2%) were hesitant to receive the vaccine against COVID-19.

More than half 11 (61.1%) agreed that they were afraid of the queue in the vaccination center while 5 participants (27.8%) disagreed with it. Similarly, about two-thirds of participants12 (66.7%) agreed on being afraid of adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine while 2 participants (11.1%) disagreed on it and more than half of participants 11 (61.1%) agreed on not having enough information about COVID-19 vaccine while very few participants 2 (11.1%) disagreed on it. On the contrary, more than half of participants10 (55.6%) disagreed on the COVID-19 vaccine not being considered serious and no need to take vaccine while less than one-fourth of participants 3 (16.7%) agreed on it. Similarly, almost half of the participants 8 (44.4%) disagreed on believing that natural immunity is sufficient so they don’t think that they need vaccine while about one-third of the participants7 (38.9%) agreed on it and more than two-thirds of the participants 13 (72.2%) disagreed on not having time to get vaccinated while 4 participants (22.2%) agreed on it.

The results are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccine.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Discussion

This is a cross-sectional study conducted to assess the acceptance and hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine among the general population of Nepal and to our knowledge it is the first study of this kind conducted in the general population of Nepal. A total of 325 people participated in this study.

Although numerous modeling studies were undertaken during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic to limit the transmission, vaccination was proven to be the most effective method to minimize the spread as well as lessen illness consequences [9]. Vaccinations are largely regarded as one of the most efficient public-health preventative strategies [26]. However, vaccination reluctance among not just individuals but even medical professionals have been an issue in recent years. Vaccine reluctance varies by time, location, and vaccine type, and is impacted by a number of factors. As a result, it is required to analyze vaccination acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine and the variables influencing it in each location in order to organize educational initiatives to promote vaccine acceptance [11]. Through this study, we have tried to understand various factors of acceptance or hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine.

The current study showed that almost all the participants were willing to get vaccinated if made available. These observations are similar to findings of a study conducted among the general population of India [27] using an online self-administered questionnaire where the acceptance rate was 86.3% and a similar result was observed in lower-middle-income countries [24].

Similarly, 71.5% of participants in a global study of 19 nations said they would accept vaccination if it was demonstrated to be effective and safe [28]. This proportion is lower than what we discovered in our investigation. Although it is difficult to compare our study to earlier ones due to variations in how the questions were given and the timeframe of the questionnaires.

Few trials, however, conducted in Kuwait [29], Jordan [30], revealed the lowest percentages of acceptability of the COVID19 vaccination, 51.3%, and 37.45%, respectively. This disparity might be attributed to a decrease in the vaccine’s putative efficiency but acceptance would have been greatest for a hypothetical vaccination with a 95% efficacy rate. However, another explanation for such low rates of COVID-19 acceptance in these Middle Eastern countries was linked to high embrace of conspiracy beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination [31].

The current study showed that the participants who were acceptable to the vaccine, more than two-thirds of the participants completely agreed that the vaccine would protect them from having COVID-19 in the future. Likewise, a handful of studies showed participants wanted to get vaccinated to protect themselves from the COVID-19 [24]. Almost half of the population who accepted the vaccine have completely agreed that getting COVID -19 decreases the complications of COVID-19 consistent with other studies [24]. Similar to this, a study done in Kuwait shows the self-perceived severity of symptoms, participants who anticipated that their COVID-19 symptoms would be mild were less accepting of the vaccine than those who anticipated that their symptoms would be severe (55.8 vs. 63.9%) [29].

In the present study, participants who were willing to get vaccinated completely agreed that it would protect family members and the community. Similar to this result, willingness to protect others by getting oneself vaccinated, was also reported to be one of the important factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in a previous study [32].

The majority of participants accepting vaccination agreed that vaccination would ease the precautionary measures including locked down, quarantine, and travel ban and make daily life normal, which was similar to the result of the study where acceptors were more likely to mention reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection and benefits related to livelihoods, and re-starting economic activities and getting back to normal life [32].

The assumed prevalence, used for sample size calculation, of vaccine hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine among the general population in India according to Khan et al. [27] was 13.7%. Upon collecting the data and analysis, our study also showed a low prevalence (7.2%) of vaccine hesitancy.

Our study observed hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccination, more than two-thirds of the participants who hesitated were afraid of unknown adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine which is similar to other studies done among health care workers in Bangladesh (87.3%) [33], general population of African American population (64.1%) [34], the general population in Malta (85.1%) [35], general populations in India (64.4%) [27] and population of Israel (70%) [36].

Moreover, almost half of the participants agreed that natural immunity is sufficient against COVID-19 which was the reason for their hesitancy. Similarly, a study done in Jordan showed participants to achieve immunity against COVID-19 using natural way was the most commonly reported reason to refuse vaccination (64%) [37]. In contrast, a study showed less than 10% considering natural immunity and traditional remedies rather than vaccination [35]. Also, a study showed only 29.1% of similar results [34].

More than two-thirds of participants disagreed to consider COVID-19 not being a serious disease which showed similarity to the study where less than 10% population considered COVID-19 as flu which is not serious [35].

The majority of the hesitant population were not sure of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination consistent with the study where more than half (68%) did not trust the vaccine to be effective and 60% did not trust the pharmaceutical companies [27]. Also a study done in Kuwait showed doubtful efficacy as a reason for hesitancy (69.9%) [29]. In contradiction, a study done in Israel showed 20% of the population is concerned about the effectiveness of vaccines [35]. The probable reason for hesitancy could be the lack of enough information about the COVID-19 vaccine [29, 30].

Collectively, these results highlight the need for improving public knowledge and trust in the effectiveness of vaccines against infectious diseases and their safety.

Limitations

Because our study sample was limited, the generalizability of our findings may be impeded by the uncertain representativeness of our study sample due to the nonrandom sampling procedure utilized. Another drawback of our study is that participants had to have access to a smartphone, tablet, or computer in order to participate, which might have created a selection bias. Furthermore, we wanted to examine people’s willingness to receive a vaccine at a time when just the first phase of immunization had been completed. As a result, as additional evidence about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines becomes available, people’s attitudes toward vaccination may shift. Our study did not take into consideration psychological elements and their effect on vaccination adoption, such as faith in science, which was found to have decreased during the COVID-19 epidemic by an Italian study [38]. Nonetheless, our study investigated a wide variety of parameters regarding the acceptability of COVID-19 immunization, which may aid in guiding future public health activities aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Conclusion

This study assessed the acceptance and hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine among the general population of Nepal via an online form. The majority of the participants accepted the vaccine (92.2%). The factors for the acceptance were mainly to protect themselves, their family, and their community from COVID-19. Also, most of the participants agreed that vaccination could decrease the complications of COVID-19. The majority of participants (96.2%) agreed that vaccination would ease the locked down and travel ban.

Also, few of the participants (7.2%) hesitated for vaccination due to factors which are unknown adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, and doubtful effectiveness of the vaccine. However almost half of the participants disagreed with their hesitancy because natural immunity is considered sufficient against COVID-19.

The major findings of this study can be utilized in planning vaccination campaigns furthermore the level of vaccine acceptance can be increased within the population if additional studies can confirm to the safety and effectiveness of the available vaccine candidates.

Supporting information

S1 File. Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (20.8KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Coronavirus, 2020. [Cited on 2021 June 17] Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus.
  • 2.Yuen KS, Ye ZW, Fung SY, Chan CP, Jin DY. SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: The most important research questions. Cell & bioscience. 2020. Dec;10(1):1–5. doi: 10.1186/s13578-020-00404-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis. 2020;91(1):157. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ministry of Health and Population. Latest update of Nepal: COVID-19. 2020[Cited on 2021 June 18].
  • 5.Giordano G, Blanchini F, Bruno R, Colaneri P, Di Filippo A, Di Matteo A, et al. Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy. Nature medicine. 2020. Jun;26(6):855–60. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tang B, Wang X, Li Q, Bragazzi NL, Tang S, Xiao Y, et al. Estimation of the transmission risk of the 2019-nCoV and its implication for public health interventions. Journal of clinical medicine. 2020. Feb 7;9(2):462. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hotez PJ, Cooney RE, Benjamin RM, Brewer NT, Buttenheim AM, Callaghan T, et al. Announcing the lancet commission on vaccine refusal, acceptance, and demand in the USA. The Lancet. 2021. Mar 27;397(10280):1165–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Orenstein WA, Ahmed R. Simply put: Vaccination saves lives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017. Apr 18;114(16):4031–3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704507114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sharpe HR, Gilbride C, Allen E, Belij‐Rammerstorfer S, Bissett C, Ewer K, et al. The early landscape of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine development in the UK and rest of the world. Immunology. 2020. Jul;160(3):223–32. doi: 10.1111/imm.13222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zimmer C.,Corum J., Wee S.L. Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker. The New York Times. 2021[cited on 18 June 2021]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015. Aug 14;33(34):4161–4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DM, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine. 2014. Apr 17;32(19):2150–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sah R, Shrestha S, Mehta R, Sah SK, Rabaan AA, Dhama K, et al. AZD1222 (Covishield) vaccination for COVID-19: Experiences, challenges, and solutions in Nepal. Travel medicine and infectious disease. 2021. Mar;40:101989. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.101989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The Himalayan Times, June 8, 2021 “Vero cell Covid-19 vaccine being administered across country from today; more groups added for vaccine eligibility” 2021[cited on June 28, 2021] Available from: https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/vero-cell-covid-19-vaccine-being-administered-across-country-from-today-more-groups-added-for-vaccine-eligibility,.p-1.
  • 15.Dhakal S. ‘New variant of coronavirus detected in Nepal’ 2021. [Cited on 2021 June 10]. Available: https://thehimalayantimes.com/search?query=b117.
  • 16.World Health Organization. The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: what you need to know. 2021 June 13[Cited 2021 June 20] Available from: http://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=How%20efficacious%20is%20the%20vaccine,associated%20with%20greater%20vaccine%20efficacy.
  • 17.Sallam M, Al-Sanafi M, Sallam M. A global map of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates per country: an updated concise narrative review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2022;15:21. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S347669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Paudel S, Palaian S, Shankar PR, Subedi N. Risk perception and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers and staff at a medical college in Nepal. Risk management and healthcare policy. 2021;14:2253. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S310289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization, ‘Nepal Situation’.2020.[Cited 2021 June 20] Available https://covid19.who.int/region/searo/country/np.
  • 20.Feemster KA. Overview: special focus vaccine acceptance. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2013. Aug 8;9(8):1752–4. doi: 10.4161/hv.26217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.De Figueiredo A, Simas C, Karafillakis E, Paterson P, Larson HJ. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: a large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. The Lancet. 2020. Sep 26;396(10255):898–908. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31558-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Weintraub RL, Subramanian L, Karlage A, Ahmad I, Rosenberg J. COVID-19 Vaccine To Vaccination: Why Leaders Must Invest In Delivery Strategies Now: Analysis describe lessons learned from past pandemics and vaccine campaigns about the path to successful vaccine delivery for COVID-19. Health Affairs. 2021. Jan 1;40(1):33–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Habersaat KB, Betsch C, Danchin M, Sunstein CR, Böhm R, Falk A, et al. Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition. Nature human behaviour. 2020. Jul;4(7):677–87. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0906-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Solís Arce JS, Warren SS, Meriggi NF, Scacco A, McMurry N, Voors M, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low-and middle-income countries. Nature medicine. 2021. Aug;27(8):1385–94. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01454-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Almaghaslah D, Alsayari A, Kandasamy G, Vasudevan R. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young adults in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional web-based study. Vaccines. 2021. Apr 1;9(4):330. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9040330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Andre FE, Booy R, Bock HL, Clemens J, Datta SK, John TJ, et al. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bulletin of the World health organization. 2008;86:140–6. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.040089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sharun K, Rahman CF, Haritha CV, Jose B, Tiwari R, Dhama K. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: beliefs and barriers associated with vaccination among the general population in India. J Exp Biol Agric Sci. 2020. Jan 1;8(Spl–1–SARS–CoV–2):S210-8. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lazarus JV, Ratzan SC, Palayew A, Gostin LO, Larson HJ, Rabin K, et al. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nature medicine. 2021. Feb;27(2):225–8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alqudeimat Y, Alenezi D, AlHajri B, Alfouzan H, Almokhaizeem Z, Altamimi S, et al. Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine and its related determinants among the general adult population in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice. 2021;30(3):262–71. doi: 10.1159/000514636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.El-Elimat T, AbuAlSamen MM, Almomani BA, Al-Sawalha NA, Alali FQ. Acceptance and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines: A cross-sectional study from Jordan. Plos one. 2021. Apr 23;16(4):e0250555. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sallam M, Dababseh D, Eid H, Al-Mahzoum K, Al-Haidar A, Taim D, et al. High rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its association with conspiracy beliefs: a study in Jordan and Kuwait among other Arab countries. Vaccines. 2021. Jan 12;9(1):42. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9010042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kalam MA, Davis TP Jr, Shano S, Uddin MN, Islam MA, Kanwagi R, et al. Exploring the behavioral determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among an urban population in Bangladesh: Implications for behavior change interventions. PLoS One. 2021. Aug 23;16(8):e0256496. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nasir M, Zaman MA, Majumder TK, Ahmed F, Nazneen R, Omar E, et al. Perception, preventive practice, and attitude towards vaccine against COVID-19 among health care professionals in Bangladesh. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2021;14:3531. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S326531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Olanipekun T, Abe T, Effoe V, Kagbo-Kue S, Chineke I, Ivonye C, et al. Attitudes and perceptions towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance among recovered African American patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021. Jul;36(7):2186–8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06787-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cordina M, Lauri MA. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine hesitancy and intention to take the vaccine. Pharmacy Practice (Granada). 2021. Mar;19(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dror AA, Eisenbach N, Taiber S, Morozov NG, Mizrachi M, Zigron A, et al. Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. European journal of epidemiology. 2020. Aug;35(8):775–9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00671-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Abu Farha RK, Alzoubi KH, Khabour OF, Alfaqih MA. Exploring perception and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine: A study from Jordan. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2021. Aug 3;17(8):2415–20. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1888633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Palamenghi L, Barello S, Boccia S, Graffigna G. Mistrust in biomedical research and vaccine hesitancy: the forefront challenge in the battle against COVID-19 in Italy. European journal of epidemiology. 2020. Aug;35(8):785–8. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00675-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

4 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-19860Acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine among Nepalese population: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 19/10/2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the invitation to review this manuscript.

In the current study, Suresh Dahal et al. investigated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adult Nepalese population using a cross-sectional web-based survey. The study results pointed to a low rate of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the country compared to rates observed in other regions and countries worldwide.

Overall, the manuscript is well-prepared, and the study design was appropriate to reach reliable conclusions regarding the study objectives.

I have the following minor comments that hopefully can help the authors to improve the final manuscript:

Abstract: The authors can benefit from adding the cited reasons reported by the participants who were hesitant to COVID-19 vaccination.

Introduction: It was clear and provided sufficient background on the study topic and included all relevant references.

Methods: The study design was appropriate, and the methods were described in enough details to allow replication of the study. One important point that should be clarified by the authors is the exact wording of the survey item that assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy besides the possible answers. I could not access the supplementary file; therefore, I am not sure if the authors provided the complete questionnaire. If not, the authors are encouraged to do so.

Results: The study results were presented clearly including the table and figures.

Discussion and Conclusions: The study results were presented in the context of the extant literature properly and the conclusions were supported by the results. Importantly, the authors presented the potential limitations of the study.

Thanks!

Reviewer #2: This is a prevalence study, looking at vaccine hesitancy.

A few comments worth addressing.

Can the authors elaborate on the why the final questionnaire was assigned randomly to people - does this mean some did not get to complete this questionnaire? What was the random method used.

Can the authors expand on the outcome measures, was this calculated by a total /mean score from the six and seven Likert questionnaire?

Sample size was set at 200, the authors noted that, they however, collected as many responses, was this still done in the recruitment period? As it might be misleading to over collect data, more than is needed for the study.

Under the data analysis section, you may want to add, for skewed data, median (IQR) were presented.

Under data analysis, remove 95%CI, as this was not done/represented, either add 95% results or omit.

Line 210- The mean “(SD)” age of the participants was 24.15 (“6.8”).- changed to 1 d.p - be consistent throughout manuscript.

Table 1 - format so that SD is 1 d.p.

Worth mentioning in the discussion that the assumed prevalence of vaccine hesitancy used for the sample size calculator, upon collecting data in the chosen population in this study, low prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was observed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0275922. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275922.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Sep 2022

Review comments to the authors:

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer Comments:

Thanks for the invitation to review this manuscript.

In the current study, Suresh Dahal et al. investigated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adult Nepalese population using a cross-sectional web-based survey. The study results pointed to a low rate of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the country compared to rates observed in other regions and countries worldwide.

Overall, the manuscript is well-prepared, and the study design was appropriate to reach reliable conclusions regarding the study objectives.

I have the following minor comments that hopefully can help the authors to improve the final manuscript:

Abstract: The authors can benefit from adding the cited reasons reported by the participants who were hesitant to COVID-19 vaccination.

Introduction: It was clear and provided sufficient background on the study topic and included all relevant references.

Methods: The study design was appropriate, and the methods were described in enough details to allow replication of the study. One important point that should be clarified by the authors is the exact wording of the survey item that assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy besides the possible answers. I could not access the supplementary file; therefore, I am not sure if the authors provided the complete questionnaire. If not, the authors are encouraged to do so.

Results: The study results were presented clearly including the table and figures.

Discussion and Conclusions: The study results were presented in the context of the extant literature properly and the conclusions were supported by the results. Importantly, the authors presented the potential limitations of the study.

Response from Author: Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript and providing constructive feedback. The minor comment on the abstract has been addressed. (Page number 3, line number: 60-62)

A complete questionnaire (both in English and Nepali language) is submitted as a supplementary file. We hope the reviewer’s comment regarding the exact wording of the survey item that assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy besides the possible answers would be addressed via the submitted questionnaire (as a supplementary file).

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer Comments: Can the authors elaborate on the why the final questionnaire was assigned randomly to people - does this mean some did not get to complete this questionnaire? What was the random method used.

Response from Author: The questionnaire was assigned randomly to people in contact with authors via social media and instant messaging apps in various parts of the country so that responses from people of diverse ages, professions, educational qualifications, and regions could be included as a part of the study. All of the shared questionnaires were not responded to, but those who had responded were complete. However, among the respondents, very few were excluded based on exclusion criteria. (Page number 10, Line number: 213-214)

The sampling technique used was self-selected non-probability sampling.

Reviewer Comments: Can the authors expand on the outcome measures, was this calculated by a total /mean score from the six and seven Likert questionnaires?

Response from Author: The outcome measures of the study show the percentage of acceptance among the Nepalese population for vaccination against COVID-19. It also depicts the different reasons for acceptance. Similarly, it shows the percentage of hesitancy among the Nepalese population for vaccination against COVID-19 along with the different reasons for their hesitancy.

The questionnaire regarding acceptance had 6 questions and regarding hesitancy had 7 questions. All the questions were measured by a 4-unit Likert Scale including, completely agree, Agree, Disagree, and Completely Disagree. The table shows the sum of responses on each option and the percentage was calculated accordingly.

Reviewer Comments: Sample size was set at 200, the authors noted that they, however, collected as many responses, was this still done in the recruitment period? As it might be misleading to over collect data, more than is needed for the study.

Response from Author: The sample size was calculated based on the estimate of the prevalence of hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine among the general population in India according to Khan et al. However, we had supplied the online questionnaire to more people for assurance if some of them might be reluctant to participate and fill up the questionnaire. Also, the more response or size of the data could help us collect more diverse data and strengthen our results and conclusion. All these data were collected only during the recruitment period. After the recruitment period was completed, the online questionnaire was made unavailable.

Reviewer Comments: Under the data analysis section, you may want to add, for skewed data, median (IQR) were presented.

Under data analysis, remove 95%CI, as this was not done/represented, either add 95% results or omit.

Response from Author: Under the data analysis section, the following statement has been added. “For skewed data, median (IQR) was presented.” (Page number 9, Line number 208)

Under the data analysis section, 95% CI has been omitted.

Reviewer Comments: Line 210- The mean “(SD)” age of the participants was 24.15 (“6.8”).- changed to 1 d.p – be consistent throughout manuscript.

Table 1 - format so that SD is 1 d.p.

Response from Author: The mean “SD” age of the participants at (Page number 10, Line number: 215) along with other values in Table 1 has been corrected and made 1 d.p. so that the data are consistent throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments: Worth mentioning in the discussion that the assumed prevalence of vaccine hesitancy used for the sample size calculator, upon collecting data in the chosen population in this study, low prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was observed.

Response from Author: The above author’s comment has been addressed in the discussion section. (Page number 14, Line number: 301-304)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (17.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

26 Sep 2022

Acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine among Nepalese population: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-22-19860R1

Dear Authors, 

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

28 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-19860R1

Acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine among Nepalese population: a cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Dahal:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES