Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Covid-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal among Canadian healthcare workers: A multicenter survey

Open access
Dzieciolowska, Stefania, Hamel, Denis, Gadio, Souleymane, Dionne, Maude, Gagnon, Dominique, Robitaille, Lucie, Cook, Erin, Caron, Isabelle, Talib, Amina, Parkes, Leighanne, Dubé, Ève, Longtin, Yves·2021·American Journal of Infection Control

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers (HCW) remains poorly understood. We assessed HCWs' willingness to be vaccinated and reasons underlying hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey across 17 healthcare institutions. HCWs eligible for vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA) in December 2020 were invited to receive immunization. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of acceptance. Reasons for refusal among those who never intended to be vaccinated (ie, firm refusers) and those who preferred delaying vaccination (ie, vaccine hesitants) were assessed. RESULTS: Among 2,761 respondents (72% female, average age, 44), 2,233 (80.9%) accepted the vaccine. Physicians, environmental services workers and healthcare managers were more likely to accept vaccination compared to nurses. Male sex, age over 50, rehabilitation center workers, and occupational COVID-19 exposure were independently associated with vaccine acceptance by multivariate analysis. Factors for refusal included vaccine novelty, wanting others to receive it first, and insufficient time for decision-making. Among those who declined, 74% reported they may accept future vaccination. Vaccine firm refusers were more likely than vaccine hesitants to distrust pharmaceutical companies and to prefer developing a natural immunity by getting COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy exists among HCWs. Our findings provide useful information to plan future interventions and improve acceptance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.04.079

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Dzieciolowska, S., Hamel, D., Gadio, S., Dionne, M., Gagnon, D., Robitaille, L., Cook, E., Caron, I., Talib, A., Parkes, L., Dubé, È., & Longtin, Y.
Venue
American Journal of Infection Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
49
Issue
9
Pages
1152-1157
ISSN
0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3159141125
Cited by
268
References
23
FWCI
31.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Covid-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal among Canadian healthcare workers: A multicenter survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.04.079
The paper
Dzieciolowska, S., Hamel, D., Gadio, S., Dionne, M., Gagnon, D., Robitaille, L., Cook, E., Caron, I., Talib, A., Parkes, L., Dubé, È., & Longtin, Y. (2021). Covid-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal among Canadian healthcare workers: A multicenter survey. American Journal of Infection Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.04.079

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.