Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Vaccines logoLink to Vaccines
. 2022 Sep 21;10(10):1583. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10101583

Assessment of Attitudes and Intentions towards COVID-19 Vaccines and Associated Factors among General Populations of Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study

Saadullah Khattak 1,2, Muhammad Idrees 3, Hafiza Iqra Iqbal 3, Maqbool Khan 4, Nasir Assad 5, Muhammad Naeem Khan 6, Muhammad Tufail Yousaf 7, Muhammad Farooq 8, Chang-Yong Yang 9,*, Dong-Dong Wu 1,10,*, Xin-Ying Ji 1,*
Editors: Andrea Costantino, K M Ariful Kabir
PMCID: PMC9609017  PMID: 36298447

Abstract

Objective: The goal of public health in combatting COVID-19 is to increase herd immunity. However, vaccine reluctance makes attaining herd immunity a worldwide challenge. This investigation aimed to identify negative and positive attitudes and intentions about COVID-19 vaccinations. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted once free COVID-19 vaccines became available in Pakistan in 2021. 4392 Pakistanis aged 18 and older were surveyed from seven administrative units between 1 July and 30 August 2021. Online structured questionnaires were utilized to collect data using a simple sampling procedure. The questionnaires were divided into three major sections: sociodemographic, health factors, and attitudes toward COVID-19. Results: The survey link was shared with approximately 4500 participants. 97.6%(4392) completed the survey once begun. Frequency, percentage and Chi-square tests were used to analyze statistical data. Most of the participants in the research were men (2703 (61.54%)), 3277 (74.61%) were aged 18–29 years, and 1824 (41.53%) were residents of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. (18.69%) Respondents expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, whereas 36.66% of participants liked getting the Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines and (35.84%) of participants preferred the Pfizer vaccine. A significant number of participants (38.05%) were concerned about the vaccine’s unexpected side effects Thus, it is essential to realize that many participants were concerned about the vaccine’s unexpected side effects. Conclusions: The overall high level of concern about the unforeseen side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as widespread vaccine hesitancy among Pakistani populations and its predictors, should be taken into account if public health intervention campaigns in Pakistan are changing negative attitudes and improving compliance with regard to COVID-19 vaccines.

Keywords: COVID-19, vaccines, attitudes, intentions, Pakistan

1. Introduction

Currently, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a healthcare challenge. COVID-19 is spread quickly by aerosols from coughing or sneezing, nasal discharge, saliva, urine, faeces, and close contact with an infected person [1,2]. Infection with COVID-19 can be asymptomatic, which may expedite its spread [3,4,5].

Vaccination has been necessary to minimize disease, disability, and mortality [6]. Vaccines are estimated to save the lives of four to five million people every year from deadly infections [5]. They were utilizing this advantage efficiently, resulting in countless outstanding achievements in the fight against influenza, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, MMR (Mumps, Measles and Rubella) and pertussis. Yet, there is a vaccine coverage disparity among nations, including within countries [7]. Vaccine hesitancy was identified as one of the most significant threats to world health in 2019 by the World Health Organization (WHO) [8]. Vaccine hesitancy leads to measles, diphtheria, and pertussis epidemics due to incorrect vaccine safety concerns [6]. Religious and political leadership can influence vaccine rejection [9]. Because of religious convictions, Thailand, Vietnam and Mongolia have a significant aversion to vaccination [10]. Furthermore, unique ideas, such as whether active immunity from natural infection is preferable to vaccination or if a healthy lifestyle might inhibit disease development, play a role [11].

The immunization efforts of the Pakistani population are far from meeting the global vaccination targets. BCG (Bacillus Calmette Guerin) vaccination coverage is 80%, polio vaccination coverage is 60%, and measles vaccination coverage is 67% [12]. Vaccination product promotions tend to be influenced by political, religious, and commercial factors, as well as logistical challenges, inadequately trained health care professionals, a lack of parental awareness and education, as well as factors related to social norms, political systems, and the environment [12,13]. Previous vaccination campaigns had relied heavily on religious and political figures promoting conspiracy theories. These beliefs have also contributed to Pakistan’s failure to eradicate polio [14]. Essential features for COVID-19 immunization uptake include government clearance of its safety and efficacy, employer endorsements, and expenditures [14]. Parents are also suspicious of the innovative COVID-19 vaccination [15]. The vaccine has been actively opposed by anti-vaccination groups, who attempt to deny the existence of COVID-19, in particular [16]. The COVID-19 vaccination program in Pakistan is managed by the National Command and Control Center (NCOC); frontline healthcare workers who are involved with the care and treatment of patients who have confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are the first to be vaccinated, followed by other healthcare workers and the general population [17].

The acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine varies from country to country. Approximately half of Americans in the United States agree with vaccination [18]. In Indonesia, 93.3% support it [19], 62% approve of it in France, Denmark has an 80% support rate [17], and 59% of Italians [20], want to get vaccinated. When the COVID-19 vaccine becomes available in Pakistan, inaccurate narratives and religious conspiracy theories may influence people’s decisions to take the vaccine [21,22]. In consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an immediate requirement for more current information on public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and related variables to adapt suitable activities. The current study intends to assess the frequency of attitudes and intentions concerning COVID-19 vaccination and to identify drivers of unfavourable attitudes and intentions. Investigating determinants of intentions toward the COVID-19 vaccination might assist authorities and governments in identifying and implementing relevant actions to alleviate concerns and reluctance and boost trust in the vaccine.

2. Subject and Methods

2.1. Participants and Study Design

The online survey was developed from 1 July to 30 August 2021 via a link to Google Forms (https://docs.google.com/forms/, accessed on 1 September 2021, Survey, Supplementary file S1). The survey’s data collection included the general population with only one age limit, participants had to be at least 18 years of age; there were no further exclusion criteria. The survey link was shared with approximately 4500 participants, and 97.6% of them (4392) completed the survey once begun. Pakistan’s estimated population on 1 July 2021 was 225,199,937 according to the World Population Review [23]. The Raosoft sample size calculator was used to calculate the needed sample size [24]. A sample size of 385 was calculated. For the sample estimate, a 50% response distribution was assumed, a 5% margin of error was taken, and a 95% confidence level was used. Several channels were sent the poll URL after a call for participants. WeChat, LinkedIn, Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram were also used to increase general public interaction. The survey took about five minutes to complete. Core members could only access the repository data, ensuring privacy.

2.2. Variables and Questionnaire Instruments

A structured survey was prepared after reviewing the relevant scientific literature and available resources on COVID-19 [19,25,26,27,28,29,30]. This survey was written in English, the preferred language of higher education and the national language of Pakistan. The utilized questionnaire consists of three parts: (1) sociodemographic information and (2) general public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations, and (3) intentions for COVID-19 vaccinations.

2.3. Information about Socio-Demographics

Participants’ gender, age, administrative unit, residence, marital status, chronic diseases, employment status, and education were collected under the “sociodemographic characteristics” section of the survey. The participants’ educational level was classified as high school, college, graduate, or post-graduate. Occupations included full-time, part-time, unemployed, housewives, retired, and workers.

2.4. The Attitude towards COVID-19 Vaccines

The six questions in this section were about attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, such as “Have you had a flu vaccination?”; “Has any family member had COVID-19?”; and “Does the ministry of health provide adequate information about COVID-19 vaccines?”; Intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine; COVID-19 vaccine preferences; and “I do not believe the vaccine works”.

2.5. The Intentions toward COVID-19 Vaccines

Fourteen questions were asked of the participants to assess their intentions toward the COVID-19 vaccinations, which are scored on a five-point Likert scale, such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and highly agree.

2.6. Operational Definitions

Positive Value: Research participants answer positively to 50% or more of the attitude and opinion questions.

Negative Value: Less than 50% of attitude and intentions questions are answered by research participants.

2.7. Dependent Variable

Attitude and intentions of general Pakistani population toward COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

2.8. Independent Variable

Sociodemographic features include gender, age, administrative units, residence, marital status, chronic disease, employment status, and education.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

To conduct a descriptive and statistical analysis of the responses obtained from Google Forms, the results were converted into Microsoft Excel format and then exported to IBM SPSSv20. Statistical Analyses were performed in Jupyter Notebook using Python 3 with Pandas, Matplotlib and stats libraries. The demographic characteristics of the research participants were displayed using descriptive medical statistics such as frequency and percentage. Chi-square tests examined the association between intentions and sociodemographic variables, which are also used in epidemiological, public health, and medical research. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

2.10. Consent to Participate

Our survey’s first page consists of an informed consent page that describes the investigation of respondents. To continue the study, participants had to consent (or decline) participation, and there was no incentive for individuals to participate in this voluntary survey.

2.11. Ethical Approval

The Department of Microbiology approved the study Ethical Research Committee at University of Swabi in Pakistan (study registration no: 1(3)-Micro-8/UoS/2022/1674).

2.12. Results

Information about Socio-Demographics

Most of the research participants were males, (2703 (61.54%) and 3277 (74.61%) were aged 18–29 years; 1824 (41.53%) were residents of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Figure 1). About 1043 (23.75%) were married and 3349 (76.25%) were single. More than half, 2830 (64.44%), were from urban areas. Among the study participants, the majority (80.76%) had no chronic diseases, 174 (3.96%) did not have any medication hypersensitivity, and 206 (4.69%) had cardiac disease. More than half, 2994 (68.17%), were students, and 850 (19.35%) were full-time workers. The majority of the 1718 (39.12%) were university graduates, 1119 (25.48%) were postgraduates, 1537 (34.99%) were from college, and 18 (0.41%) from school, respectively. Table 1 illustrates a detailed analysis of the demographics of the study participants.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Distribution of participants according to the area.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the study population (n = 4392).

S.No. Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Gender Male 2703 61.54
Female 1683 38.32
I prefer not to say 6 0.14
2 Age 18–29 3277 74.61
30–49 1041 23.70
Above 50 74 1.69
3 Administrative Units Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1824 41.53
Punjab 1176 26.78
Sindh 463 10.54
Islamabad Capital Territory 372 8.47
Baluchistan 268 6.10
Azad Jammu and Kashmir 150 3.42
Gilgit-Baltistan 139 3.16
4 Residence Urban 2830 64.44
Rural 1562 35.56
5 Marital status Single 3349 76.25
Married 1043 23.75
6 Chronic disease No chronic disease 3547 80.76
Cardiac disease 206 4.69
Hypertension 174 3.96
Overweight/obesity 168 3.83
Others 132 3.00
Asthma or respiratory disease 108 2.46
Kidney or liver disease 51 1.16
Cancer 6 0.14
7 Employment Status Student 2994 68.17
Full-Time 850 19.35
Part-Time 180 4.10
Unemployed 162 3.69
Housewife 114 2.60
Retired 74 1.68
Worker 18 0.41
8 Education Graduate 1718 39.12
College 1537 34.99
Postgraduate 1119 25.48
High School 18 0.41
Open in a new tab

3. The Attitude towards COVID-19 Vaccines

Approximately 3102 participants (70.62%) had never taken the flu vaccination. At the same time, 37.4% of respondents had a family member who had COVID-19. Most research participants believed that the Ministry of Health provided sufficient information on COVID-19 vaccines. Concerning intent to get the COVID19 vaccination, 18.69% were hesitant, 4.92% were unwilling, and just 76.39% were willing to do so. About 36.66% and 35.84% of survey participants preferred the Sinopharm, Sinovac and Pfizer vaccines, respectively. Figure 2 and Figure 3, equating to 6.55%, 3.01%, and 7.29% who preferred the Moderna vaccine, Sputnik V vaccine and AstraZeneca vaccine, respectively (Table 2 and Table 3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Participant’s response to Vaccine types.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Association between attitude and age. Note: Here percentage is calculated based on a total number of observations, i.e., 43.4% of the total participant’s attitude is positive. In Table 3, the row-wise percentage is calculated.

Table 2.

The attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines among the general population (n = 4392).

Q.No Questions/Variables Values Frequency Percentage
1 Have you had a flu vaccination? Never 3102 70.62
Yes last year 486 11.07
Yes (a long time ago) 450 10.25
Yes this year 282 6.42
Yes every year 72 1.64
No 2337 53.22
Yes 1851 42.14
Don’t know 204 4.64
2 Has any family member had COVID-19? Yes 2219 50.52
No 2083 47.43
Don’t know 90 2.05
3 Does the ministry of health provide adequate information about COVID-19 vaccines? Yes 3365 76.62
No 541 12.32
Don’t know 486 11.06
4 Intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine willing to take the vaccine 3555 57.39
hesitated to take the vaccine 821 18.69
not willing to take the vaccine 216 4.92
5 COVID-19 vaccine preferences Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccine 1610 36.66
Pfizer vaccine 1574 35.84
I don’t have enough information to decide 468 10.65
AstraZeneca 320 7.29
Moderna vaccine 288 6.55
Sputnik V vaccine 132 3.01
6 I do not believe the vaccine works Strongly disagree 1275 29.02
Disagree 1425 32.45
Neutral 1194 27.19
Agree 288 6.56
Strongly agree 210 4.78
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Association between Attitude and demographic variables (n = 4392).

S.No. Variable Categories Positive
Frequency (%age)		 Negative
Frequency (%age)		 Chi-Square Significance
(p-Value)
1 Gender Male 1863 (68.92) 840 (31.08) 112.40 0.000
Female 905 (53.77) 778 (46.23)
I prefer not to say 0 (0) 6 (100)
2 Age 18–29 1906 (58.16) 1371 (41.84) 138.10 0.000
30–49 794 (76.27) 247 (23.73)
Above 50 68 (91.89) 6 (8.11)
3 Administrative Units Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1038 (56.91) 786 (43.09) 505.98 0.000
Punjab 654 (55.61) 522 (44.39)
Sindh 463 (100) 0 (0)
Islamabad Capital Territory 282 (75.81) 90 (24.19)
Baluchistan 111 (41.42) 157 (58.58)
Azad Jammu and Kashmir 150 (100) 0 (0)
Gilgit-Baltistan 70 (50.36) 69 (49.64)
4 Residence Urban 1641 (57.99) 86.66 0.000
Rural 1127 (72.15) 435 (27.85)
5 Marital status Single 2074 (61.93) 1275 (38.07) 7.25 0.0071
Married 694 (66.54) 349 (33.46)
6 Chronic disease No chronic disease 2118 (59.71) 1429 (40.29) 410.78 0.000
Cardiac disease 206 (100) 0 (0)
Hypertension 174 (100) 0 (0)
Overweight/obesity 36 (21.43) 132 (78.57)
Others 102 (77.27) 30(22.73)
Asthma or respiratory disease 96 (88.89) 12 (11.11)
Kidney or liver disease 30 (58.82) 21 (41.18)
Cancer 6 (100) 0 (0)
7 Employment Status Student 1923 (64.23) 1071 (35.77) 256.60 0.000
Full-Time 531 (62.47) 319 (37.53)
Part-Time 156 (86.67) 24 (13.33)
Unemployed 72 (44.44) 90 (55.56)
Housewife 6 (5.26) 108 (94.74)
Retired 62 (83.78) 12 (16.22)
Worker 18 (100) 0 (0)
8 Education Graduate 1004 (58.44) 714 (41.56) 170.86 0.000
College 1162 (75.60) 375 (24.40)
Postgraduate 590 (52.73) 529 (47.27)
High School 12 (66.67) 6 (33.33)
Open in a new tab

4. The Intentions toward COVID-19 Vaccines

The most generally stated reason for vaccine acceptance was to defend oneself from obtaining the virus (1731 (39.41%)), followed by 1534 participants (34.92%) who feel sure that their family is safe after being vaccinated against COVID-19. 1654 (37.66%) participants agree that COVID-19 vaccines can end the pandemic. Half of the participants, 2250 (50.66%), believe that although most vaccinations seem to be safe, there may be issues that haven’t yet been identified; COVID-19 vaccines might create unforeseen problems among different demographic groups according to 38.05% of respondents, and 1747 (39.78%) people were concerned about the unknown future effects of vaccinations. More than 1064 people (24.23%) disagreed that the government promotes vaccination for financial benefit instead of for people’s health. In comparison, 1488 participants (33.88%) believed that COVID-19 vaccination schemes were a big con. Approximately 1384 (31.51%) participants were concerned about the rapidity with which the COVID vaccine is being produced, and 1044 (23.77%) had an early reaction to prior vaccinations and were worried about the reaction to COVID-19 vaccination. Just 490 participants (11.6%) said that they do not get vaccinated due to their fears about needles. Approximately 1698 participants (38.65%) indicated that natural immunity lasted longer than COVID-19 vaccination, 1140 participants (25.96%) agreed that natural exposure to the novel Coronavirus provides the safest and most effective protection, and 1288 participants (29.33%) believed that natural disease contact is a better method of preventing disease than vaccination (Table 4 and Table 5, and Figure 4).

Table 4.

The intentions toward COVID-19 vaccines among General Populations (n = 4392).

Q.No. Questions/Variables Values Frequency Percentage
1 I feel safe after being vaccinated against COVID-19 Agree 1731 39.41
Neutral 1462 33.29
Strongly agree 947 21.56
Disagree 174 3.96
Strongly disagree 78 1.78
2 I can feel that my family is protected after getting vaccinated against COVID 19 Agree 1534 34.92
Neutral 1462 33.29
Strongly agree 892 20.31
Disagree 432 9.84
Strongly disagree 72 1.64
3 I can rely on COVID-19 vaccines to stop the pandemic Neutral 1726 39.3
Agree 1654 37.66
Strongly agree 640 14.57
Disagree 252 5.74
Strongly disagree 120 2.73
4 Although most vaccines appear to be safe, there may be problems that we have not yet discovered Agree 2225 50.66
Neutral 1135 25.84
Strongly agree 612 13.93
Disagree 360 8.2
Strongly disagree 60 1.37
5 COVID-19 vaccines can cause unforeseen problems in some population groups. Agree 1671 38.05
Neutral 1528 34.79
Disagree 516 11.75
Strongly disagree 383 8.72
Strongly agree 294 6.69
6 I worry about the unknown effects of vaccines in the future. Agree 1747 39.78
Neutral 1377 31.35
Disagree 684 15.57
Strongly agree 354 8.06
Strongly disagree 230 5.24
7 Authorities promote vaccination for financial gain, not for people’s health. Neutral 1593 36.27
Disagree 1064 24.23
Agree 802 18.26
Strongly disagree 741 16.87
Strongly agree 192 4.37
8 COVID-19 vaccination programs are a big con Agree 1488 33.88
Neutral 1254 28.55
Disagree 960 21.86
Strongly disagree 486 11.07
Strongly agree 204 4.64
9 I am worried about the rapid development of the COVID vaccine Agree 1384 31.51
Neutral 1334 30.37
Disagree 1098 25
Strongly disagree 336 7.66
Strongly agree 240 5.46
10 I have had a prior reaction to other vaccines, and I am worried about a reaction to COVID vaccination Disagree 1307 29.76
Neutral 1251 28.49
Agree 1044 23.77
Strongly disagree 568 12.93
Strongly agree 222 5.05
11 I do not get vaccinated because of a fear of needles Disagree 1571 35.76
Strongly disagree 1557 35.45
Neutral 714 16.26
Agree 490 11.16
Strongly agree 60 1.37
12 Natural immunity lasts longer than COVID-19 vaccination. Agree 1698 38.65
Neutral 1372 31.24
Disagree 674 15.35
Strongly agree 486 11.07
Strongly disagree 162 3.69
13 Natural exposure to novel corona gives the safest protection Neutral 1615 36.77
Disagree 1177 26.8
Agree 1140 25.96
Strongly agree 286 6.51
Strongly disagree 174 3.96
14 Being exposed to diseases naturally is safer for the immune system than being exposed through vaccination Agree 1288 29.33
Neutral 1270 28.92
Disagree 968 22.04
Strongly agree 482 10.97
Strongly disagree 384 8.74
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

Association between intentions and demographic variables (n = 4392).

S.No. Variable Categories Positive
Frequency (%age)		 Negative
Frequency (%age)		 Chi-Square Significance
(p-Value)
1 Gender Male 2535 (93.78) 168 (6.22) 1.84 0.390
Female 1563 (92.87) 120 (7.13)
Prefer not to say 6 (100) 0 (0)
2 Age 18–29 3031 (92.49) 246 (7.51) 20.83 0.000
30–49 999 (95.97) 42 (4.03)
Above 50 74 (100) 0 (0)
3 Administrative Units Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1644 (90.13) 180 (9.87) 354.45 0.000
Punjab 1170 (99.49) 6 (0.51)
Sindh 463 (100) 0 (0)
Islamabad Capital Territory 282 (75.81) 90 (24.19)
Baluchistan 268 (100) 0 (0)
Azad Jammu and Kashmir 150 (100) 0 (0)
Gilgit-Baltistan 127 (91.37) 12 (8.63)
4 Residence Urban 2620 (92.58) 210 (7.42) 9.67 0.0019
Rural 1484 (95.01) 78 (4.99)
5 Marital status Single 3085 (92.12) 264 (7.88) 40.44 0.000
Married 1019 (97.70) 24 (2.30)
6 Chronic disease No chronic disease 3295 (92.90) 252 (7.10) 106.01 0.000
Cardiac disease 206 (100) 0 (0)
Hypertension 174 (100) 0 (0)
Overweight/obesity 156 (92.86) 12 (7.14)
Others 126 (95.45) 6 (4.55)
Asthma or respiratory disease 108 (100) 0 (0)
Kidney or liver disease 33 (64.71) 18 (35.29)
Cancer 6 (100) 0 (0)
7 Employment Status Student 2784 (92.99) 210 (7.01) 112.36 0.000
Full-Time 838 (98.59) 12 (1.41)
Part-Time 150 (83.33) 30 (16.67)
Unemployed 132 (81.48) 30 (18.52)
Housewife 108 (94.74) 6 (5.26)
Retired 74 (100) 0 (0)
Worker 18 (100) 0 (0)
8 Education Graduate 1664 (96.86) 54 (3.14) 56.11 0.000
College 1399 (91.02) 138 (8.98)
Postgraduate 1023 (91.42) 96 (8.58)
High School 18 (100) 0 (0)
Open in a new tab

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The Intentions toward COVID-19 vaccines among the general populations (n = 4392).

5. Discussion

Vaccination is one of the twenty-first century’s most important public health breakthroughs. Vaccination fear represents one of the most critical public health challenges today. The significant degree of vaccination apprehension reveals that the obtainability of COVID-19 vaccines is not the source of concern.

Prior published studies indicated that proper public knowledge is a significant predictor of disease prevention and control. Compared to the more severe second wave, the Pakistani individuals and cancer patients surveyed during the first wave of COVID-19 infection were aware of COVID-19 prevention measures [31,32]. More than half of the participants (38.05%) expressed a high level of fear about the vaccine’s unforeseen effects, which is consistent with a US study which revealed that the most common negative attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines was significant worry about its unforeseen effects [33]. Furthermore, according to Chinese research, 48% of participants postponed vaccination until vaccine effectiveness was proven [34]. Several scientists have expressed concern about the safety of vaccinations. The rapid production rate of vaccines and the doubts raised by some scientists and health experts may generate suspicion about the COVID-19 vaccine [35]. In the study, 39.78% of participants expressed concerns about possible adverse effects when the vaccine first became available. In a similar study, Pogue et al. found that 63% of participants were concerned about the side effects of COVID-19 vaccination [36].

A 2021 study that looked at global trends in COVID-19 vaccination reluctance revealed that men, older people, and those who had previously had influenza vaccines were less prone to hesitancy, which confirmed our results [37]. They also observed that those who lived in cities and those in the upper or middle tiers considered affluent were less inclined to be fearful of vaccines. Regardless, our study found no evidence of a link between these factors [37]. Our results indicated that 76.37% of participants were highly likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, which was much lower than the reported rates in Brazil (89%), Italy (81%), and the United Kingdom (80%), but was higher than the reported rates in Canada (71%), the United States (57%), Turkey, and France (49% for both) [37]. The following elements were discovered to have a more extensive effect on vaccination ratios and might be utilized to develop public health strategies and communications to boost vaccination proportions. Knowing that the COVID-19 vaccine is both efficient and safe will increase a considerable percentage of the trial group to vaccinate. These two variables are part of the VCI and are currently investigated in a major worldwide investigation [38]. They are expected to have the greatest effect on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. Instilling trust in vaccines and the companies that supply them will be critical if proper, honest reporting of the risks and benefits ratios is provided on social media and news platforms [39]. Although confidence in vaccine manufacturers has been recognized as a major factor in vaccination acceptance, this must be maintained by focusing on the stringent regulatory requirements that the companies must follow, which can be communicated through uniform and transparent healthcare communication. Participants’ desire to vaccinate was also influenced by their belief that the COVID-19 vaccination would protect individuals surrounding them. Though vaccinated individuals can also transmit SARS-CoV-2, transmission is lowered, which ensures that friends and family are kept secure [40]. Even though confidence in vaccine companies has been established as a crucial determinant in vaccination acceptability [35], this has to be maintained by concentrating on the strict regulatory criteria that organizations must follow, which may be communicated through clear and uniform healthcare communication. Healthcare experts will use continuously updated connectivity to correct info on the COVID-19 vaccine. This will help battle non-evidence-based anti-vaccination propaganda by detailing benefits and concerns, assessing new data as it arises, and customizing it to people seeking treatment [41,42].

The public health authorities must offer precise, simple-to-understand data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccinations to the public at large, such as those previously stated in the H1N1 pandemic [43]. This will help to reduce the confusion caused by disinformation in the media and on the internet. Moreover, we acknowledge Seale et al.’s recommendations [42], which include adjusting messaging and incorporating local leaders in communicating vaccination knowledge among minority ethnic groups, given the recognised effect of comparable social groups and community leaders. Participation and training are critical for healthcare staff, as they play a crucial role in demonstrating health-promoting behaviour for the public [44]. Several healthcare professionals in Australia have previously received the mandated influenza vaccine and compulsory COVID-19 vaccination for elderly care employees and healthcare staff in all regions and states [45].

Additionally, experience suggests that most people employed in other health institutions have been vaccinated, with just a tiny percentage refusing the COVID-19 vaccination since the required strategy was changed. Health providers’ ideas and attitudes against COVID-19 vaccination may mirror similar community concerns reported in the UK, with reluctance being more common in non-white British healthcare professionals, female sex, and those of younger age [46]. Given the risks to patients and staff and the need for booster (or third dose) vaccines in the present outbreak, it is crucial to comprehend the legislation, information, attitudes, and opinions in influencing this behaviour.

In order to increase the number of COVID-19 vaccinations, it is important to reach people where they are with persuasive information from reliable sources. Optimizing or modifying the individual vaccination plan through the dynamic monitoring of vaccination efficacy is one potential solution. Volunteers and staff can go to areas where vaccination rates are low to answer people’s questions about vaccinations and set up appointments for vaccinations for themselves and their loved ones. The elderly, those with disabilities, those who are confined to their homes, and residents of rural areas may be the most vulnerable groups in the community. For those who struggle to get to a vaccination site, at-home vaccinations might be a good option. In cooperation with nearby pharmacies, paramedics and healthcare professionals provide vaccinations door-to-door. Residents can fill-out an online form or make a phone request for at-home vaccinations. It is essential to use reliable channels of communication to inform communities about COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination locations. Gaining the confidence of their communities is essential for health departments if they want to see an increase in demand for COVID-19 vaccinations [47,48,49,50,51,52,53].

This research has certain limitations. It only included people who had access to the internet, eliminating the most marginalized communities. Among the respondents, only about 1% were older than 50 years of age, and about 40% were graduates. Furthermore, the data’s cross-sectional character restricts our capability to make inferences regarding direct relationships. The sample, on the other hand, is representative of the Pakistani population, and the use of mixed approaches allowed for a better understanding of the results as well as the order of the ideas.

6. Conclusions

Despite the overall mortality, hospital readmissions, and death caused by COVID-19, the results of this study on vaccine hesitancy are noteworthy given the documented safety and efficacy of widely tested vaccinations to prevent these problems and the urgent need to accelerate immunization internationally, particularly in Pakistan. Vaccine intentions are influenced by vaccination efficacy, effectiveness, trust in corporations, and doctor advice. Further studies must be conducted on vaccination reluctance among specific groups, such as healthcare professionals and linguistically and culturally diverse individuals. COVID-19 vaccine uptake could be improved with this research, especially in Pakistan with the Delta variant. There is a high level of concern about unforeseen side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as widespread hesitancy among Pakistani populations and its predictors when implementing public health intervention campaigns to change negative attitudes and improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of all the participants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.-D.W. and X.-Y.J.; data curation, S.K. and M.N.K.; formal analysis, S.K. and M.K.; project administration, S.K., D.-D.W. and X.-Y.J.; software, M.K. and S.K.; supervision, C-Y-Y., D.-D.W. and X.-Y.J.; writing—original draft, S.K., M.I., N.A. and H.I.I.; writing—review and editing, S.K., M.I., H.I.I., M.T.Y., M.F., C.-Y.Y., D.-D.W. and X.-Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Department of Microbiology approved the study Ethical Research Committee at University of Swabi in Pakistan (study registration no: 1(3)-Micro-8/UoS/2022/1674).

Informed Consent Statement

Our survey’s first page consists of an informed consent page that describes the investigation of respondents. To continue the study, participants had to consent (or decline) to participate, and there was no incentive for individuals to participate in this voluntary survey.

Data Availability Statement

On reasonable request, the corresponding author will provide the datasets used and analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have declared that they do not have any competing interests.

Funding Statement

National Natural Science Foundation of China funded this work (Nos. 81802718, U1504817 and 31902287), the Foundation of Science and Technology Department of Henan Province (Nos. 192102310151, 202102310480), and the Training Program for Young Backbone Teachers at the Institution of Higher Learning in Henan Province (No. 2020GGJS038).

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Wang C., Horby P.W., Hayden F.G., Gao G.F. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. Lancet. 2020;395:470–473. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30185-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Islam M.S., Rahman K.M., Sun Y., Qureshi M.O., Abdi I., Chughtai A.A., Seale H. Current knowledge of COVID-19 and infection prevention and control strategies in healthcare settings: A global analysis. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020;41:1196–1206. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yu P., Zhu J., Zhang Z., Han Y. A Familial Cluster of Infection Associated With the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Indicating Possible Person-to-Person Transmission During the Incubation Period. J. Infect. Dis. 2020;221:1757–1761. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Imran H., Raja D., Grassly N., Wadood M.Z., Safdar R.M., O’Reilly K.M. Routine immunization in Pakistan: Comparison of multiple data sources and identification of factors associated with vaccination. Int. Health. 2018;10:84–91. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihx067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ahmed A., Dujaili J., Sandhu A.K., Hashmi F.K. Concerns of HIV-positive migrant workers in COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action. J. Glob. Health. 2020;10:020342. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Andre F.E., Booy R., Bock H.L., Clemens J., Datta S.K., John T.J., Lee B.W., Lolekha S., Peltola H., Ruff T.A., et al. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bull. World Health Organ. 2008;86:140–146. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.040089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pinna C., Kaewkungwal J., Hattasingh W., Swaddiwudhipong W., Methakulchart R., Moungsookjareoun A., Lawpoolsri S. Evaluation of Immunization Services for Children of Migrant Workers Along Thailand–Myanmar Border: Compliance with Global Vaccine Action Plan (2011–2020) Vaccines. 2020;8:68. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8010068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. [(accessed on 20 April 2020)]. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019.
  • 9.Wombwell E., Fangman M.T., Yoder A.K., Spero D.L. Religious Barriers to Measles Vaccination. J. Commun. Health. 2015;40:597–604. doi: 10.1007/s10900-014-9956-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Larson H.J., De Figueiredo A., Xiahong Z., Schulz W.S., Verger P., Johnston I.G., Cook A.R., Jones N.S. The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey. EBioMedicine. 2016;12:295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McKee C., Bohannon K. Exploring the Reasons Behind Parental Refusal of Vaccines. J. Pediatr. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016;21:104–109. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-21.2.104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Butt M., Mohammed R., Butt E., Butt S., Xiang J. Why have immunization efforts in Pakistan failed to achieve global standards of vaccination uptake and infectious disease control? Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy. 2020;13:111. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S211170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jamal D., Zaidi S., Husain S., Orr D.W., Riaz A., Farrukhi A.A., Najmi R. Low vaccination in rural Sindh, Pakistan: A case of refusal, ignorance or access? Vaccine. 2020;38:4747–4754. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lazarus J.V., Ratzan S.C., Palayew A., Gostin L.O., Larson H.J., Rabin K., Kimball S., El-Mohandes A. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat. Med. 2021;27:225–228. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sagara I., Ellis R.D., Dicko A., Niambele M.B., Kamate B., Guindo O., Sissokoa M.S., Fay M.P., Guindo M.A., Kante O., et al. A randomized and controlled Phase 1 study of the safety and immunogenicity of the AMA1-C1/Alhydrogel®+ CPG 7909 vaccine for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in semi-immune Malian adults. Vaccine. 2009;27:7292–7298. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ullah I., Khan K.S., Tahir M.J., Ahmed A., Harapan H. Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID-19: Potential effect on global vaccine refusals. Vacunas. 2021;22:93–97. doi: 10.1016/j.vacun.2021.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Naeem S.B., Bhatti R. The COVID-19 ‘infodemic’: A new front for information professionals. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2020;37:233–239. doi: 10.1111/hir.12311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Reiter P.L., Pennell M.L., Katz M.L. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated? Vaccine. 2020;38:6500–6507. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Harapan H., Wagner A.L., Yufika A., Winardi W., Anwar S., Gan A.K., Setiawan A.M., Rajamoorthy Y., Sofyan H., Mudatsir M. Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Southeast Asia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia. Front. Public Health. 2020;8:381. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.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. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020;35:785–788. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00675-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fadda M., Albanese E., Suggs L.S. When a COVID-19 Vaccine Is Ready, Will We All Be Ready for It? Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2020. pp. 711–712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan Y.H., Mallhi T.H., Alotaibi N.H., Alzarea A.I., Alanazi A.S., Tanveer N., Hashmi F.K. Threat of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Pakistan: The Need for Measures to Neutralize Misleading Narratives. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020;103:603–604. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.WAoa. [(accessed on 1 July 2021)]. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/pakistan-population.
  • 24.rcAoa. [(accessed on 1 July 2021)]. Available online: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html.
  • 25.Alle Y.F., Oumer K.E. Attitude and associated factors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health professionals in Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, North Central Ethiopia; 2021: Cross-sectional study. VirusDisease. 2021;32:272–278. doi: 10.1007/s13337-021-00708-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Malik A.A., McFadden S.M., Elharake J., Omer S.B. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. eClinicalMedicine. 2020;26:100495. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Omar D.I., Hani B.M. Attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors among Egyptian adults. J. Infect. Public Health. 2021;14:1481–1488. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.06.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fu C., Wei Z., Zhu F., Pei S., Li S., Zhang L., Sun X., Wu Y., Liu P., Jit M. Acceptance of and preference for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers: A comparative analysis and discrete choice experiment. medRxiv. 2022;2020:09.20060103. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Magadmi R.M., Kamel F.O. Beliefs and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccination among the general population in Saudi Arabia. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11501-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Riaz A., Husain S., Yousafzai M.T., Nisar I., Shaheen F., Mahesar W., Dal S.M., Omer S.B., Zaidia S., Ali A. Reasons for non-vaccination and incomplete vac-cinations among children in Pakistan. Vaccine. 2018;36:5288–5293. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Khattak S., Faheem M., Nawaz B., Khan M., Khan N.H., Ullah N., Khan T.A., Khan R.U., Haleem K.S., Ren Z.-G., et al. Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of Cancer Patients towards COVID-19 in Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:7926. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19137926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Khattak S., Khan M., Usman T., Ali J., Wu D.-X., Jahangir M., Haleem K., Muhammad P., Rauf M.A., Saddique K., et al. Assessment of General Populations Knowledge, Attitude, and Perceptions Toward the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Cross-Sectional Study From Pakistan. Front. Med. 2021;8:747819. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.747819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Callaghan T., Moghtaderi A., Lueck J.A., Hotez P.J., Strych U., Dor A., Fowler E.F., Motta M. Correlates and disparities of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021;272:113638. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang J., Jing R., Lai X., Zhang H., Lyu Y., Knoll M.D., Fang H. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Vaccines. 2020;8:482. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8030482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chou W.-Y.S., Budenz A. Considering Emotion in COVID-19 Vaccine Communication: Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy and Fostering Vaccine Confidence. Health Commun. 2020;35:1718–1722. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1838096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mannan D.K.A., Farhana K.M. Knowledge, attitude and acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine: A global cross-sectional study. Int. Res. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020;6 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3763373. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Stojanovic J., Boucher V., Gagne M., Gupta S., Joyal-Desmarais K., Paduano S., Aburub A., Gorin S.S., Kassianos A., Ribeiro P., et al. Global Trends and Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy: Findings from the iCARE Study. Vaccines. 2021;9:661. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9060661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.De Figueiredo A., Simas C., Karafillakis E., Paterson P., Larson H.J. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and in-vestigating barriers to vaccine uptake: A large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. Lancet. 2020;396:898–908. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31558-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Nazaroff D. May Cause Side Effects: How Social Media Could Be Affecting COVID Vaccine Hesitancy New South Wales. UNSW; Sydney, Australia: 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lipsitch M., Dean N.E. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Science. 2020;370:763–765. doi: 10.1126/science.abe5938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Danchin M., Biezen R., Manski-Nankervis J.-A., Kaufman J., Leask J. Preparing the public for COVID-19 vaccines: How can general practitioners build vaccine confidence and optimise uptake for themselves and their patients? Aust. J. Gen. Pract. 2020;49:625–629. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-08-20-5559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Seale H., Heywood A.E., Leask J., Sheel M., Durrheim D.N., Bolsewicz K., Kaur R. Examining Australian public perceptions and behaviors towards a future COVID-19 vaccine. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021;21:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05833-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Eastwood K., Durrheim D.N., Jones A., Butler M. Acceptance of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination by the Aus-tralian public. Med. J. Aust. 2010;192:33–36. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03399.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stojanovic J., Boucher V.G., Boyle J., Enticott J., Lavoie K.L., Bacon S.L. COVID-19 Is Not the Flu: Four Graphs From Four Countries. Front. Public Health. 2021;9:628479. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.628479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Biswas N., Mustapha T., Khubchandani J., Price J.H. The Nature and Extent of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers. J. Community Health. 2021;46:1244–1251. doi: 10.1007/s10900-021-00984-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Woolf K., McManus I.C., Martin C.A., Nellums L.B., Guyatt A.L., Melbourne C., Bryant L., Gogoi M., Wobi F., Al-Oraibi A., et al. Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021;9:100180. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ways Health Departments Can Help Increase COVID-19 Vaccina-Tions. [(accessed on 28 August 2022)]; Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/generate-vaccinations.html.
  • 48.CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) [(accessed on 28 August 2022)]; Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ncird/index.html.
  • 49.OECD Enhancing Public Trust in COVID-19 Vaccination: The Role of Governments. [(accessed on 28 August 2022)]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/enhancing-public-trust-in-covid-19-vaccination-the-role-of-governments-eae0ec5a/
  • 50.Glanville D. COVID-19 Vaccines: Development, Evaluation, Approval and Monitoring [Internet]. European Medicines Agency. 2020. [(accessed on 28 August 2021)]. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring.
  • 51.Meppelink C.S., Smit E.G., Fransen M.L., Diviani N. “I was Right about Vaccination”: Confirmation Bias and Health Literacy in Online Health Information Seeking. J. Health Commun. 2019;24:129–140. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1583701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mindell J.S., Reynolds L., Cohen D., McKee M. All in this together: The corporate capture of public health. BMJ. 2012;345:e8082. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mondal A. The importance of community engagement on COVID-19 vaccination strategy: Lessons from two California pilot programs. eClinicalMedicine. 2021;32:100754. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100754. [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

On reasonable request, the corresponding author will provide the datasets used and analyzed in this study.

Articles from Vaccines are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES