Skip to main content
Download PDF

Non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and reasons for non-uptake among healthcare workers in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 663 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Vaccines play a crucial role in eradicating and containing disease outbreaks. Therefore, understanding the reasons behind vaccine refusal and associated factors is essential for improving vaccine acceptance rates. Our objective was to examine the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine non-uptake and explore the reasons for non-uptake among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Uganda.

Methods

Between July and August 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional study among healthcare workers in primary healthcare facilities (private and government) in Entebbe Municipality, Uganda. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling, and consenting individuals received credentials to access an electronic database and complete a structured questionnaire. There were no established HCWs contact registers in the municipality, and the study was conducted during a national lock down, therefore, the HCWs who were on duty at the time of the study were approached. The survey questions were based on the ‘3Cs’ model of vaccine hesitancy and focused on confidence, convenience, and complacency factors. Non-uptake of vaccines was defined as not having received any of the available vaccines in the country. We employed counts, percentages, and simple logit models to summarize the reasons for non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to identify associated factors.

Results

The study recruited 360 HCWs, 61.7% of whom were female, with an average age of 31 years (SD = 7.9). Among them, 124 (34.4%) healthcare workers did not receive any COVID-19 vaccine. Non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was independently associated with several factors, including age [35 + years adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13–0.66 compared with 18–24 years], facility ownership [government, aOR = 0.22 (0.10–0.49) compared with private not-for-profit], previous testing for coronavirus [yes, aOR = 0.35 (0.19–0.65)], and previous involvement in COVID-19 vaccine activities [yes, aOR = 0.17 (0.10–0.29)]. The primary reasons cited for non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines were related to a lack of confidence in the vaccines, such as concerns about side effects (79.8%) and the need for more time to understand the vaccines (89.5%), as well as the importance of weighing benefits and risks (84.7%) before being vaccinated. A smaller proportion, approximately 23%, cited reasons related to complacency and lack of convenience in accessing vaccination services.

Conclusion

The high proportion of non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among this population primarily stems from a lack of confidence and trust in the vaccines, coupled with insufficient time allowed for users to make informed decisions. This underscores the urgent need for ongoing monitoring and trend analysis of vaccine non-uptake to guide the development and implementation of strategies aimed at building and sustaining vaccine confidence. Adequate time should be allowed to explain benefits of vaccination to the population to allay fears that might exist before actual vaccination is rolled out.

Peer Review reports

Background

The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 [1] has presented a significant global health challenge, resulting in the loss of more than 7 million lives by December 31, 2023 [1]. Failing to effectively control the spread of the virus poses substantial risks to public health, including increased morbidity and mortality rates, which could overwhelm healthcare systems worldwide. In response, global efforts have prioritized vaccination as a crucial strategy to combat the pandemic. Immunization campaigns aim to achieve widespread immunity, thereby reducing the incidence of severe disease and hospitalization among the population.

Apart from the direct individual health benefits of conferring immunity, high vaccination coverage rates are important in attaining herd immunity [2, 3]. The attainment of herd immunity, which is critical for stopping disease spread, is directly affected by the non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines [4].

On Friday 5th March 2021, the Uganda Ministry of Health received her first batch of 864,000 doses of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, shipped via the COVAX facility, and vaccination was prioritized for the following groups of people: health care workers, security personnel, teachers, journalists, persons aged 50 years and above and those with underlying health conditions [5]. The vaccines were freely accessible at no cost. The COVAX facility allocated 3,552,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to Uganda for the period of January–June 2021 [5]. On 31 July 2021, the country received 300,000 doses of the Sinovac vaccine from the Chinese government [6]. On 6th September 2021, 647,080 doses of Moderna vaccines were received, and on 21 September, 1,674,270 doses of Pfizer vaccine were received as donations from the US government [7]. On 8th October 2021, Uganda received the first batch of 196,000 doses of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine [8]. Other vaccines were subsequently introduced into the country. Hence, at the time of rollout of this study, only the AstraZeneca and Sinovac vaccines were available in designated public healthcare facilities in the country.

On the 10th March 2021, COVID-19 vaccines were launched [9] and prioritized for populations at high risk of developing severe disease and frontline healthcare workers (HCWs), who are not only at high risk of contracting the disease but also spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus to patients under their care [10]. HCWs are a trusted source of health information and are likely to influence the use of COVID-19 vaccines [11]. Although HCWs are knowledgeable about the importance of vaccination, not all of them believe in vaccination, with some HCWs perceiving vaccines as unsafe and unnecessary [12, 13]. Studies have indicated that the non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs ranges from 4.3 to 72% [14] and varies with the role of HCWs, with nurses being less likely to take the vaccines [15,16,17,18,19].

Several sociodemographic factors, including age, may influence the use of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs [20]. Younger age has been identified as one such factor associated with lower vaccine uptake, possibly attributed to the perception of a reduced risk of severe disease among younger individuals [21,22,23]. Other demographic factors, such as sex and education level, have been reported to affect the use of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers [19, 21, 24].

The decision to get vaccinated immediately, delay of vaccination or complete refusal of vaccines may be influenced by factors such as confidence, complacency and convenience (‘3Cs’ model). The World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) working group developed the 3Cs model to explain vaccine hesitancy [25]. Confidence refers to a level of trust in the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, the delivery system, the reliability of health professionals, and the motivations of policymakers who make determinations about vaccines. Convenience refers to the degree to which the comfort, time, place, and quality of a vaccine affect the uptake of the vaccine, while complacency refers to a low perceived risk of vaccine-preventable diseases and therefore assumes that vaccination is not required to prevent the disease. The ‘3Cs’ model was later extended to 5Cs by adding calculations (extensive information searching by the individual) and communal orientation (considering collective responsibility) [25]. The decision to get vaccinated may vary with time, place, and type of vaccine; therefore, determinants of vaccine non-uptake need to be explored at different levels and among populations [26]. Vaccine confidence is one such important determinant of vaccine uptake. Trust in COVID-19 vaccines was affected by the fast-track production of the vaccines, which could have led to low uptake of the vaccines [27]. Also changes in government policies regarding vaccination mandates and vaccine distribution strategies to accommodate the need to conduct vaccinations among population groups at high risk of infection could affect the healthcare workers and/or public perception of COVID-19 vaccines [28]. A study by Alshareef et al., 2021 reported that 50.29% of healthcare workers were not willing to get vaccinated until the safety of the vaccines was demonstrated [24]. A similar study by Gadoth et al., (2021) reported a high COVID-19 vaccine non-uptake of 65.5% among HCWs in Los Angeles due to concerns about vaccine safety [29]. Vaccine convenience, which refers to the degree to which the comfort, time, place, and quality of a vaccine affect the uptake of the vaccine, is an important factor in determining vaccine uptake [13, 30, 31]. While numerous studies have explored individuals’ intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19 once vaccines become available, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding actual vaccine uptake among healthcare workers (HCWs). It is crucial to recognize that the intention to get vaccinated does not necessarily translate into actual uptake, emphasizing the importance of studying real-world vaccine acceptance and utilization among HCWs. A study by Nasimu et al., 2024 reported that 65.6% of the HCWs within primary healthcare facilities within Entebbe municipality took at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine [32]. A significant proportion of HCWs, therefore, were hesitant to take the vaccines, and the reasons for non-uptake needed to be explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine non-uptake among HCWs in primary healthcare facilities within the Entebbe municipality. This study further explored the reasons for the non-uptake of vaccines among HCWs using the 3Cs + 2 model factors of vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a cross-sectional study aimed at describing the non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the associated reasons and factors among healthcare workers in private and government primary health facilities in Entebbe Municipality, Uganda.

Study setting

The study was conducted in Entebbe Municipality, which is located approximately 40 km south of Kampala, the capital of Uganda. The estimated population (adults and children) in this municipality is approximately 700,000 people. There are about 40 healthcare facilities, approximately 80%, are privately owned. The municipality also has one regional referral hospital that was excluded from this study because a similar study was concurrently being conducted at this hospital.

Study participants

Participants for this study were drawn from HCWs in the primary healthcare facilities described above. The participants were categorized as either medical or nonmedical staff. The medical HCWs included medical doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, paramedics, social workers, and research scientists, while the nonmedical HCWs included health center managers, accountants, receptionists, and janitors. Due to the absence of established healthcare workers’ contact lists within the municipality, participants were selected through convenience sampling. The study was also conducted during the national lockdown; therefore, only participants who were on duty at the time of data collection were approached.

Data collection

The data were collected by research assistants between 1st July and 3rd August 2021. A structured questionnaire developed in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) was used to collect the data. The questionnaire was adapted from the WHO Strategic Advisory Group on Experts (SAGE) on Immunization survey tool [33], for details, please refer to the supplementary material. The reasons for taking or not taking the vaccine were categorized based on the 3 C + 2 model of vaccine hesitancy, which includes factors such as confidence, complacency, convenience, collective responsibility and calculation. HCWs who agreed to participate and provided consent had the questionnaire link shared through email or WhatsApp. Participants who had no computer or smartphone were offered the study’s smartphone to complete the survey. The 3 C + 2 model of the reasons for the non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1 3 C + 2 model of reasons why HCWs were not vaccinated
Full size table

Statistical analysis

The data were electronically captured in the REDCap (Westlake, TX, USA) software database and transferred to STATA version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) for statistical analysis. Participant characteristics were summarized overall and stratified by vaccine uptake status and compared using chi-square tests. Means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges were used for continuous variables. The proportion of vaccine non-uptake was estimated as the number of participants who had not received any COVID-19 vaccine divided by the total number of participants studied, expressed as a percentage. The reasons for the lack of uptake of vaccines are summarized in the graphs. We used simple logistic regression models to determine factors associated with non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines via univariate and multivariate models. We first fitted logit models for univariable analysis, and factors that attained a statistically significant likelihood ratio test (LRT) p value < 0.2 were considered for multivariable analysis. In the multivariable analysis, we used a backwards elimination approach, retaining factors that attained a statistically significant LRT p value < 0.05, with the exception of sex, which was included a priori. Before multivariable analysis, we checked for multicollinearity and assessed for inclusion only those factors that were more statistically significantly associated with non-uptake in the univariate analysis.

Results

Participant characteristics

We recruited 360 healthcare workers, mostly females (n = 222; 61.7%), with a mean age of 31 years (SD = 7.9). Approximately two-thirds were medical, with mostly a bachelor’s degree and above, n = 287 (80%), and the majority (n = 285; 79.2%) were aged more than 24 years (Table 2).

Non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines

A total of 124 (34.4%), 95%CI: 29.5-39.6% of the participants did not take up any COVID-19 vaccine despite free access. The percentage of individuals who did not take vaccines decreased with increasing age (42.7% in the 18–24 years age group vs. 39.2% in the 25–34 years age group and 20.2% in the 35 + year age group, p = 0.001); the percentage of individuals who did not take vaccines was greater among secondary contacts than among primary contacts (40.7% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001), and the percentage of individuals taking vaccines from small roadside clinics (48.4%) was greater than among those in the Health Centre III & IV clinics (20.8%) and hospitals (29.8%, p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2 Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and vaccine uptake among 360 healthcare workers enrolled in a COVID-19 uptake study in Uganda, 2021
Full size table

Factors associated with non-uptake of vaccines

According to the multivariable analysis, factors that were independently associated with non-uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine included age [25–34 years, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.35–1.40, 35 + years aOR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13–0.66, all compared to 18–24 years], previous COVID-19 infection status [yes, aOR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.19–0.65] and ever been involved in COVID-19 vaccine activities [yes, aOR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10–0.29]. Other factors are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers in Uganda
Full size table

Primary reasons why healthcare workers were not vaccinated

The reasons for vaccine non-uptake are depicted in Fig. 1 below. Mostly, reasons related to lack of confidence in the vaccines, such as concerns about side effects (79.8%) and calculations, including insufficient time to understand the vaccines (89.5%) and weighing benefits and risk (84.7%) before being vaccinated, were considered key reasons for not receiving vaccination. An average of 23% of the respondents raised reasons related to complacency and lack of convenience (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Reasons why HCWs were not vaccinated (n = 124)

Full size image

Discussion

The findings of this study revealed that one in three healthcare workers did not take up COVID-19 vaccines despite their availability. This finding contrasts with that of Patrick et al., [34], who reported that one in ten healthcare workers in Uganda were unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine [35]. The difference in findings may be attributed to differences in the study setting. Our study was conducted in an urban setting, while Patrick et al., conducted the study in a rural setting. It is also well known that vaccine non-uptake is context specific, varying from place to place, time to time and between populations [25]. Two-thirds of healthcare workers in the Patrick et al., study were nurses, and most were low-cadre healthcare workers; similar studies have reported low rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses [15, 36]. Our study, however, didn’t report a significant relationship between the staff cadre and non-uptake of the vaccines. Globally, healthcare workers were among the priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination due to their increased risk of exposure to infections, and since they are a trusted source of information, non-uptake could have impacted the overall uptake of the vaccines by the general population. Furthermore, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccine hesitant healthcare workers are less likely to recommend a COVID-19 vaccine to their patients [37].

Young age was associated with non-uptake of the vaccines, a finding that has been reported by similar studies [14, 15]. This finding is not surprising since higher morbidity and mortality rates due to COVID-19 have been reported among older patients [38, 39]. While being young is associated with a low risk of severe COVID-19, non-uptake of vaccines among this age group should be addressed. A study by James et al., 2021 that explored the factors associated with COVID-19 severity in US children and adolescents reported that 20% of the children admitted to the hospital suffered from severe disease [40], and being black was associated with greater disease severity. Furthermore, young individuals are highly mobile, which could contribute to increased transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Access to vaccination services is a critical determinant of vaccine uptake. In this study, we found that working in a private health facility was associated with increased non-uptake of vaccines compared with working in government health facilities. In Uganda, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination has been concentrated in government healthcare facilities. This inaccessibility to vaccination services could have led to higher non-uptake rates among HCWs in these facilities. Being a private HCW is also associated with stringent work schedules, and some HCWs (22.6%) reported not being able to leave their workplaces to go for vaccination. Inaccessibility to COVID-19 vaccines has been reported to be one of the barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake [41].

This study explored the effect of prior testing for coronavirus infection on vaccine uptake among HCWs. We found that HCWs who had never been tested for the coronavirus were less likely to take the vaccines than were the participants who had ever been tested. A study by Laura et al. [34] reported that 96% of participants consumed a COVID-19 vaccine at least once, mostly after infection with the coronavirus [42]. This difference in uptake could be due to differences in risk perceptions among HCWs. However, in our study, there was no relationship between the test results and the use of COVID-19 vaccines.

The study further revealed that healthcare workers who were not involved in COVID-19 vaccination-related activities were less likely to take up vaccines than those who were involved in vaccine-related healthcare. Healthcare workers who participate in vaccination services are trained about vaccines, which improves their understanding of vaccines, how they work and their safety, hence building confidence and trust in vaccination services. However, there is a paucity of data in this area; hence, further research is needed.

Using the 5 C constructs (confidence, convenience, complacency, calculation, and collective responsibility model) of the determinants of vaccine uptake, we found that a lack of confidence in vaccines and an increased search for information were associated with the non-uptake of vaccines. Greater than 50% of the healthcare workers did not take up the vaccines due to safety concerns, rushed vaccine production and concerns about side effects after vaccination. These concerns have also been reported by other studies as reasons for non-uptake of the vaccines [14, 35, 43, 44]. Shortly after the launch of COVID-19 vaccination in Uganda, safety concerns related to thromboembolism were reported about Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine [45], and this could have had an impact on the uptake of the vaccines by the HCWs. This study, however, didn’t explore individual safety concerns and their relationship with COVID-19 vaccines. Hence, vaccine confidence should be regularly monitored to detect new trends to prompt interventions to build and maintain vaccine confidence. More than two-thirds of the healthcare workers who never received the vaccines reported having read negative media about COVID-19 vaccines, needed more time to understand COVID-19 vaccines and weighed the benefits vs. the risks before deciding to receive the vaccines. This is not surprising, as COVID-19 vaccines were associated with many myths and misconceptions [46]. A systematic review of the studies done earlier during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic reported that 0.2–28.8% of the social media posts about the vaccines could be classified as misinformation [47]. Previously reported misconceptions about the vaccines included, the COVID-19 vaccine contains a microchip to control the population, the vaccine not having been tested on enough people, and getting infected with the virus after vaccination [46]. This indicates that information-seeking actions such as deciding to take the vaccine based on the sought or established reliable information were important determinants of vaccine uptake. Therefore, providing information that meets the expectations of the public is critical for one’s decision to vaccinate, specifically the trust that COVID‐19 vaccines are safe and effective.

This study is one of the few studies that has explored the reasons for non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among health care workers in sub-Saharan Africa. Information was collected during the peak of the epidemic, when the morbidity and mortality rates due to COVID-19 were highest. Therefore, the reasons for non-uptake would be most expressed during this time. Therefore, the findings of this study reflect true healthcare workers’ perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. However, this study is limited by the fact that, we used convenience sampling; hence, the findings may not be generalizable to all healthcare workers. Only those HCWs who were on duty at the time of data collection were contacted and included in the study. Additionally, we cannot exclude reporting bias since we relied on self-reported information about vaccination.

Conclusions

This study highlights a concerning level of vaccine non-uptake among HCWs in the Entebbe municipality, largely stemming from a lack of confidence and trust in the vaccines. This finding underscores the importance of continuous monitoring and trend identification to guide efforts aimed at building and sustaining vaccine confidence among HCWs. Given the association between participation in vaccine-related services and higher uptake, integrating vaccine safety information into continuous medical education programs for HCWs is essential to address safety concerns effectively. Moreover, it is imperative for government and development partners to ensure equitable involvement of both private and public healthcare systems in vaccination programs. This approach will help to enhance access to vaccines and strengthen overall vaccination coverage across the population.

This study revealed that a lack of confidence in vaccines among HCWs could influence their uptake by the general population since healthcare workers are a trusted source of information. Healthcare workers who do not trust vaccines are unlikely to recommend that their patients or population receive vaccines. Therefore, exploring the reasons for the non-uptake of vaccines should be an ongoing process, especially for new vaccines. Most government vaccine policies are based on well-known and studied diseases/infections, COVID-19 infections and vaccines provided the need to formulate vaccination policies in the face of an outbreak. Further research with qualitative approach is recommended to inform targeted interventions to address specific barriers to vaccine uptake among HCWs.

Data availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of country-specific data sharing restrictions. Data are available from the UVRI Institutional Data Access/Ethics Committee (contact via +256773747607) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Abbreviations

COVID-19:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

HCWs:

Healthcare workers

LRT:

Likelihood ratio test

SARS-CoV-2:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2

SAGE:

Strategic Advisory Group on Experts

UVRI-REC:

Uganda Virus Research Institute’s Research and Ethics Committee

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. WHO C-d. Number of COVID-19 deaths reported to WHO: WHO. 2024. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths?n=c.

  2. Betsch C, Böhm R, Korn L, Holtmann C. On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(3):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Economic evaluation of vaccination programs: the impact of herd-immunity. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(1):76–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tu W, Zhang P, Roberts A, Allen KS, Williams J, Embi P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death in vaccinated and infected individuals by age groups in Indiana, 2021–2022. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(1):96–104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Reliefweb. Uganda receives 864,000 doses of COVID-19 vaccines Kampala, Uganda: OCHA services; 2021. https://reliefweb.int/report/uganda/uganda-receives-864000-doses-covid-19-vaccines.

  6. Xinhua. Uganda receives Chinese-donated vaccines in fight against COVID-19 2021 [cited 2024 03 February]. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-07/31/c_1310099615_2.htm.

  7. Independent T. Uganda receives 1.6 million doses of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine: The Independent; 2021. https://www.independent.co.ug/uganda-receives-1-6-million-doses-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/.

  8. Independent T. Uganda receives 196,000 doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine Kampala, Uganda: The independent; 2021 [cited 2024 03 February]. https://www.independent.co.ug/uganda-receives-196000-doses-of-johnson-and-johnson-vaccine/.

  9. UNICEF. Uganda launches first phase of COVID-19 vaccination exercise Kampala, Uganda2021 [cited 2024 03 February]. https://www.unicef.org/uganda/stories/uganda-launches-first-phase-covid-19-vaccination-exercise.

  10. Ngandu NK, Mmotsa TM, Dassaye R, Thabetha A, Odendaal W, Langdown N, et al. Hospital acquired COVID-19 infections amongst patients before the rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations, a scoping review. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher KA, Nguyen N, Crawford S, Fouayzi H, Singh S, Mazor KM. Preferences for COVID-19 vaccination information and location: associations with vaccine hesitancy, race and ethnicity. Vaccine. 2021;39(45):6591–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hough-Telford C, Kimberlin DW, Aban I, Hitchcock WP, Almquist J, Kratz R et al. Vaccine delays, refusals, and patient dismissals: a survey of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3).

  13. Verger P, Collange F, Fressard L, Bocquier A, Gautier A, Pulcini C, et al. Prevalence and correlates of vaccine hesitancy among general practitioners: a cross-sectional telephone survey in France, April to July 2014. Eurosurveillance. 2016;21(47):30406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Biswas N, Mustapha T, Khubchandani J, Price JH. The nature and extent of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in healthcare workers. J Community Health. 2021;46:1244–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gopaul CD, Ventour D, Thomas D. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake among healthcare workers in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2022;2022.

  16. Raftopoulos V, Iordanou S, Katsapi A, Dedoukou X, Maltezou HC. A comparative online survey on the intention to get COVID-19 vaccine between Greek and Cypriot healthcare personnel: is the country a predictor? Hum Vaccines Immunotherapeutics. 2021;17(8):2397–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sallam M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: A concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines 2021, 9, 160. Publisher Full Text. 2021.

  18. Shaw J, Stewart T, Anderson KB, Hanley S, Thomas SJ, Salmon DA, et al. Assessment of US health care personnel (HCP) attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in a large university health care system. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gagneux-Brunon A, Detoc M, Bruel S, Tardy B, Rozaire O, Frappe P, et al. Intention to get vaccinations against COVID-19 in French healthcare workers during the first pandemic wave: a cross-sectional survey. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:168–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maltezou HC, Pavli A, Dedoukou X, Georgakopoulou T, Raftopoulos V, Drositis I, et al. Determinants of intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel in hospitals in Greece. Infect Disease Health. 2021;26(3):189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuter BJ, Browne S, Momplaisir FM, Feemster KA, Shen AK, Green-McKenzie J, et al. Perspectives on the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine: a survey of employees in two large hospitals in Philadelphia. Vaccine. 2021;39(12):1693–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kukreti S, Lu M, Lin Y, Strong C, Lin C, Ko N, et al. Willingness of Taiwan’s healthcare workers and outpatients to vaccinate against COVID-19 during a period without community outbreaks. Vaccines. 2021; 9 (3), 246. s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published; 2021.

  23. Wang K, Wong ELY, Ho KF, Cheung AWL, Chan EYY, Yeoh EK, et al. Intention of nurses to accept coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and change of intention to accept seasonal influenza vaccination during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Vaccine. 2020;38(45):7049–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Alshareef N, Al-Hanawi M, Qattan A, Alsharqi O, Chirwa G, Al Rahahleh N, editors. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. APHA 2021 Annual Meeting and Expo; 2021: APHA.

  25. MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. Nat Med. 2021;27(2):225–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Willis DE, Andersen JA, Bryant-Moore K, Selig JP, Long CR, Felix HC, et al. COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy: Race/ethnicity, trust, and fear. Clin Transl Sci. 2021;14(6):2200–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Maneze D, Salamonson Y, Grollman M, Montayre J, Ramjan L. Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2023;138:104389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gadoth A, Halbrook M, Martin-Blais R, Gray A, Tobin NH, Ferbas KG, et al. Cross-sectional assessment of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers in Los Angeles. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(6):882–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell JV, Garfein RS, Thiede H, Hagan H, Ouellet LJ, Golub ET, et al. Convenience is the key to hepatitis A and B vaccination uptake among young adult injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;91:S64–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Norton SP, Scheifele DW, Bettinger JA, West RM. Influenza vaccination in paediatric nurses: cross-sectional study of coverage, refusal, and factors in acceptance. Vaccine. 2008;26(23):2942–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kyakuwa N, Kimbugwe G, Nakanjako F, Kalute H, Mpooya S, Atuhairwe C, et al. High uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers in urban Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(4):e0277072.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Schulz WS, Chaudhuri M, Zhou Y, Dube E, et al. Measuring vaccine hesitancy: the development of a survey tool. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 2023 U. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/data-book-2023_en.pdf 2023 [UNAIDS Report].

  35. Ouni PD, Namulondo R, Wanume B, Okia D, Olupot PO, Nantale R, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health workers in rural Uganda: a mixed methods study. Vaccine: X. 2023;13:100260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hassan W, Kazmi SK, Tahir MJ, Ullah I, Royan HA, Fahriani M et al. Global acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination: a narrative review. Narra J. 2021;1(3).

  37. Verger P, Scronias D, Dauby N, Adedzi KA, Gobert C, Bergeat M et al. Attitudes of healthcare workers towards COVID-19 vaccination: a survey in France and French-speaking parts of Belgium and Canada, 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021;26(3).

  38. Li H, Wang S, Zhong F, Bao W, Li Y, Liu L, et al. Age-dependent risks of incidence and mortality of COVID-19 in Hubei Province and other parts of China. Front Med. 2020;7:190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roy J, Jain R, Golamari R, Vunnam R, Sahu N. COVID-19 in the geriatric population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;35(12):1437–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Antoon JW, Grijalva CG, Thurm C, Richardson T, Spaulding AB, II RJT, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19 disease severity in US children and adolescents. J Hosp Med. 2021;16(10):603–10.

  41. Abba-Aji M, Stuckler D, Galea S, McKee M. Ethnic/racial minorities’ and migrants’ access to COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. J Migration Health. 2022;5:100086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schackmann L, Hek K, Vervloet M, Koster ES, van Dijk L. Provision of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines information: perspectives of people who have had COVID‐19. Health Expect. 2023;26(2):806–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 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. Lancet. 2020;396(10255):898–908.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Trogen B, Oshinsky D, Caplan A. Adverse consequences of rushing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: implications for public trust. JAMA. 2020;323(24):2460–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wise J. Covid-19: European countries suspend use of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of blood clots. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2021.

  46. Hammad AM, Al-Qerem W, Zaid AA, Khdair SI, Hall FS. Misconceptions related to COVID 19 vaccines among the Jordanian population: myth and Public Health. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2023;17:e207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gabarron E, Oyeyemi SO, Wynn R. COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(6):455.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the training and support from the University of Nairobi’s Building Capacity for Writing Scientific Manuscripts (UANDISHI) Program at the Faculty of Health Sciences. This work was funded in part through the ADVANCE program at IAVI. This work was made possible by the support of the American People through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this study are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of PEPFAR, USAID, or the United States Government. Special thanks to the healthcare workers who agreed to participate in this study.

Funding

This research was supported by funds from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials partnerships through the Eastern Africa Consortium for Clinical Research, grant number RIA2019IR-2873. The grant holder was Prof Pontiano Kaleebu. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection, manuscript development or the decision to publish. Funding website: www.edctp.org and www.eaccr.org.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda

    Nasimu Kyakuwa, Simon Mpooya & Hamza Kalutte

  2. MRC/UVRI & LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda

    Andrew Abaasa

  3. Uganda Martyrs University, Kampala, Uganda

    Christine Atuhairwe

  4. Department of Medicine, Service of Immunology and Allergy, Centre for Human Immunology Lausanne, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Laurent Perez

  5. Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

    Bernard Kikaire

Authors
  1. Nasimu Kyakuwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Abaasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Mpooya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamza Kalutte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christine Atuhairwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laurent Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bernard Kikaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, writing, methods, and visualization: NK; writing, review, data analysis and editing: AA; data analysis and editing: CA; data management and editing: HK and SM; supervision and editing: LP; supervision and funding acquisition: BK.All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasimu Kyakuwa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study received ethical approval from the Uganda Virus Research Institute’s Research and Ethics Committee (UVRI-REC) approval number GC/127/845. Before participation, each participant signed a written informed consent form.

Consent for publication

The authors have agreed to publish this work.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kyakuwa, N., Abaasa, A., Mpooya, S. et al. Non-uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and reasons for non-uptake among healthcare workers in Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 663 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11137-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11137-2

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us