Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 71163

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : LC18 - LC24 Full Version

Motivational Factors and Post Vaccination Symptoms among COVID-19 Vaccinated Beneficiaries at a Tertiary Care Hospital, West Bengal, India: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/57598.17027
Nabanita Chakraborty, Maumita De, Jhuma Sarkar

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 3. Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Maumita De,
32/1 B, Garpar Road, Post Office: Amherst Street,
Kolkata-700009, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: drmaumita80@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Since the emergence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been an intense burden on the health system and economy worldwide with millions of people being affected leading to several deaths. In this scenario vaccination seems to be a hope to control the pandemic. However, fear of adverse events following immunisation sometimes makes people hesitant about vaccination.

Aim: To assess the spectrum of post vaccination symptoms and also to identify the motivational factors along with their determinants at a tertiary care hospital, West Bengal, India.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the COVID-19 Vaccination Centre at Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata West Bengal, India (tertiary care hospital), from August 2021 to November 2021. A total of 448 vaccinated beneficiaries were enrolled in the study. Data collection was done by an online questionnaire, sent to the participants in their registered mobile numbers. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used for data analysis.

Results: Among 448 study participants, 262 (58.5%) were in 18-44 years of age group, 248(55.4%) female, 384 (85.7%) Hindu, 132 (29.5%) medical or paramedical students, 290 (64.7%) passed graduation and above and 306 (68.3%) belonged to nuclear family. About 228 (50.9%) beneficiaries reported post vaccination symptoms. Most common being local pain at injection site, found among 150 (65.8%) out of them. Most common motivational factors of COVID-19 vaccination were found to be fear of COVID-19 infection, reported by 274 (61.2%) participants, which showed significant difference with various age groups (p-value=0.001), religions (p-value=0.030), occupations (p-value<0.001) and educations (p-value=0.002). Statistical significant (p<0.05) differences were also found according to age, gender, co-morbidities, interval between vaccination and past COVID-19 infection and type of COVID-19 vaccine in relation to onset of post vaccination symptoms.

Conclusion: Following COVID-19 immunisation minor adverse events were reported. Monitoring of those adverse events will help in further responding and prompt action. Also, the knowledge about motivational factors is expected to reduce vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated people.

Keywords

Adverse events, Coronavirus Disease 2019, Immunisation, Pandemic

The current pandemic due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), known as COVID-19,, has emerged as a catastrophe, putting immense pressure on the health and economic system worldwide (1),(2). In this scenario, effective vaccine seemed to offer the only hope (2),(3),(4).

In India, three vaccines, Covishield, Covaxin and Sputnik V, have got approval from the Drug Controller General of India (5). The vaccine schedule was two doses for each vaccine. Nationwide vaccination programme started on 16th January 2021 with healthcare workers being the first group of beneficiaries to receive the vaccine. It was gradually expanded to include the frontline workers, senior citizens and eventually to all adults (18 years and above) (5).

One of the greatest challenges of this vaccination programme was the acceptance of the vaccine by the general population. Undue fear of any adverse events and confusion about the efficacy of the vaccines were identified as the main determining factors for successful vaccination programme (6),(7),(9). Several studies based on the ‘health belief model’ and ‘protection motivation theory’ has revealed some factors affecting the vaccine acceptance viz. perception of risk due to the disease, safety, efficacy, cost of the vaccine, past history of vaccination, physician’s recommendation and the attitude and socio-demographic characteristics of the population (10),(11),(12),(13),(14).

Though vaccines are an important tool in public health, helping in prevention and control of several diseases, vaccination may lead to reactions like other drugs (3). Though, these reactions are mostly non severe, it interferes with a person’s confidence in vaccines. Various factors like awareness regarding vaccines, religious and socio-political issues, fear of associated risks and socio-economic factors may alter the attitude of an individual towards vaccination (15),(16),(17).

Several studies have been conducted to find the factors affecting willingness to get vaccinated, but most of them were community based studies (17),(18). Since this study was conducted among the beneficiaries vaccinated at a COVID-19 Vaccination Centre, it will help us to assess the motivating factors for vaccination and its determinants. This may help in raising public awareness. Fear of side effects is one of the important causes of vaccine hesitancy. Thus, knowledge regarding the post vaccination symptoms will help to educate the people regarding the adverse effects, which will help to allay the fear and increase the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine, which may ultimately lead to increased coverage and curb the pandemic.

Hence, the following study was conducted to find out the Post Vaccination Symptoms (PVS) and to assess the motivational factors of COVID-19 vaccination among the beneficiaries attending the COVID-19 Vaccination Centre (CVC) of a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal, India.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the COVID-19 Vaccination Centre at Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata West Bengal, India (tertiary care hospital), from August 2021 to November 2021. After receiving Institutional Ethics Committee approval (Vide Memo No: NRSMC/IEC/04/2021, Dated: 20.07.2021), permission was sought for obtaining informed verbal consent from the participants considering the feasibility issues, since online questionnaire was sent. The participants were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality of the given information.

Inclusion criteria: The beneficiaries, who attended the COVID-19 Vaccination Centre and were vaccinated with atleast one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Vaccinated person who were severely ill and also the beneficiaries or any of their family members who were unable to read, type and understand in English and also incompletely filled up the Google form were excluded from the study.

Sample size: Based on a study finding by Kamal D et al., 57% of recipients reported atleast one or more adverse events following COVID-19 immunisation, anticipated P was 57% (19). Assuming confidence level of 95% and absolute precision of 5%, the minimum required sample size was calculated as 392. Considering 10% non response rate, the minimum required sample size was 432. Beneficiaries attending the vaccination centre on any single day of the week were selected randomly. Considering average turnover to be 280 beneficiaries per day, the beneficiaries were selected by systematic random sampling and every 10th beneficiary was chosen. Hence, a sample size of 448 beneficiaries, who have filled up the questionnaires completely, was selected for final study.

Questionnaire

A survey questionnaire was prepared by the authors initially after review of literature related to adverse events of COVID-19 vaccine (19),(20),(21) and motivational factors for COVID-19 vaccination (17). Content validity and face validity of this study tool was checked by the experts from Departments of Community Medicine, General Medicine and Respiratory Medicine. Reliability of the study questionnaire was assessed and Cronbach’s alpha value measured was 0.74. This pretested and predesigned questionnaire by means of online Google form was sent to the participants in their registered mobile numbers. The questionnaire consisted of five parts.

First part: It consisted of six questions on socio-demographic variables
Age
Gender
Religion
Occupation
Education
Type of family
Second part: It included three questions related to clinical history of the patient:
Co-morbidity status
Medication history
Past history of COVID-19 infection
Third part: It contained three questions on COVID-19 vaccination history:
Type of COVID-19 vaccine (Covishield or Covaxin, because these two vaccines were only available in the study Institution during data collection period),
Number of doses taken,
Interval between vaccination and
Past COVID-19 infection (if any).
Fourth part: It included four questions pertaining to details of the post vaccination symptoms (if any), their onset of development and duration of symptoms.
Fifth part: It incorporated question on motivational factors for vaccination, where 12 options like fear of disease or hospitalisation, availability of vaccine at free of cost, social media effect, self motivation, others etc. were given for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ subjective responses.

Statistical Analysis

All collected data were compiled and analysed by MS Excel 16.0 and Epi info 7.2.4. Results were presented in proportions (%) and Chi-square test of significance was applied. The significance level was fixed as p-value <0.05.

Results

In the present study, most of the participants like 262 (58.5%) were in 18-44 years of age group, 248 (55.4%) female, 384 (85.7%) were Hindu by religion. Among the vaccinated population maximum i.e. 132 (29.5%) were medical or paramedical students, 290 (64.7%) passed graduation and above and 306 (68.3%) belonged to nuclear family (Table/Fig 1).

A total 138 (30.8%) out of 448 study population were suffering from associated co-morbidities, whereas 10 (2.2%) people did not know about their disease status. Common co-morbidity was found to be hypertension 64 (14.3%) followed by diabetes 40 (8.9%), thyroid disease 26 (5.8%), heart disease 14 (3.1%), lung disease 8 (1.8%), renal disease and neurological disease 4 (0.9% each) (Table/Fig 2). Among 138 diseased subjects 116 (84.1%) were taking regular medications. Seventy two out of 448 (16.1%) of the participants had suffered from COVID-19 infections in the past before vaccination.

Among 448 participants 114 (25.4%) has taken Covaxin and 334 (74.6%) taken Covishield. Among all vaccinated persons 382 (85.3%) have completed second dose of vaccination. Out of 72 participants with past history of COVID-19 infections, most of them 60 (83.3%) have taken vaccines after 3 months of COVID-19 infection (Table/Fig 3).

It has been found that 228 (50.9%) out of 448 study population reported any post vaccination symptom. Most common symptom was found to be local pain at injection site 150 (65.8%) followed by tiredness or lethargy 10244.7%). Least common Post Vaccination Symptoms (PVS) reported to be breathing problem and painful swollen gland 2 (0.8% each) (Table/Fig 4). Most of the vaccinated patients like 178 (39.7%) developed PVS within 2 days of vaccination. As reported by the participants, most like 161 (35.9%) among them suffered from PVS for 1-3 days (Table/Fig 5).

Most common motivational factors of COVID-19 vaccination were found to be fear of COVID-19 infection 274 (61.2%), availability of vaccine at free of cost 153 (34.2%), self-motivated 140(31.3%) and fear of hospitalisation 120 (26.8%) (Table/Fig 6).

Factors related to Post Vaccination Symptoms (PVS): It has been found that onset of PVS among study population differ significantly (p-value<0.05) according to their age (p-value<0.001), gender (p-value=0.019), co-morbidities (p-value=0.014), interval between COVID-19 vaccination and past COVID-19 infection (p-value=0.006) and type of COVID-19 vaccine (p-value=0.010) (Table/Fig 7).

There is statistically significant difference (p-value <0.05) found in relation to duration of PVS with interval between COVID-19 vaccination and past COVID-19 infection (p-value <0.001) and also with type of COVID-19 vaccine (p-value=0.014) (Table/Fig 8).

Some background characteristics like age group, gender, religion, occupation, education and co-morbidities were statistically tested against most common four motivational factors and the results have been depicted in (Table/Fig 9). Only yes responses (%) regarding motivational factors are mentioned in the Table. It has been seen that fear of COVID-19 infection significantly different (p-value <0.05) among different age groups (p-value=0.001), religions (p=0.030), occupations (p-value <0.001) and educations (p-value=0.002). There was statistically significant difference found in relation to fear of hospitalisation with gender (p-value=0.025), occupation (p-value <0.001) and education (p-value=0.021). COVID-19 vaccination due to self-motivation varied significantly in relation to participants’ age group (p-value <0.001), gender (p-value <0.001), religions (p-value=0.039), occupations (p-value <0.001), educations (p-value=0.002) and comorbidities (p-value=0.001) also. While considering availability of COVID-19 vaccine at free of cost, it is significantly different according to age group (p-value <0.001), gender (p-value=0.019), occupation (p-value=0.044) and education (p-value <0.001).

Other eight motivational factors also statistically tested against above mentioned background characteristics and the test results are mentioned in (Table/Fig 10). It has been found that motivation due to easy vaccine availability significantly vary according to occupation (p-value <0.001) and education (p-value=0.046). People with different age group (p-value<0.001), gender (p-value <0.001), religion (p-value=0.005), occupation (p-value<0.001) and education (p-value=0.019) significantly motivated for COVID-19 vaccination on family history of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19. Influence of family or friends to get vaccinated found to be significantly different according to age (p-value<0.001), education (p-value<0.001) and co-morbidities (p-value=0.001). There was significant variation in age (p-value=0.012) and occupation (p-value<0.001) due to motivation by family physician’s advice. It has been found that fear of death varied significantly according to age group (p-value=0.026), gender (p-value=0.006), occupation (p-value=0.002) and presence of comorbidities (p-value=0.023). Participants with varied occupation (p-value<0.001) and education (p-value=0.010) significantly motivated due to trust on healthcare providers. Social media could motivate significantly for vaccination only due to presence of co-morbidities (p-value<0.001). No participants got significantly motivated by community health workers.

Discussion

In this study about 16% of the participants suffered from past COVID-19 infections and majority (83.3%) of them took vaccines after 3 months of infections. Similarly a study performed in Czech Republic stated that 19.3% vaccinated individuals had been previously infected by COVID-19, but the median latency period between the recovery date and the first vaccine dose was 65 days (22).

In the present study, Covishield was taken by 75% of the people compared to 25% taken Covaxin. It may be due to more supply of this particular vaccine in West Bengal state of India. Comparison between proportion and distribution of post vaccination symptoms of the present study with the contrast studies are incorporated in (Table/Fig 11) (3),(19),(20),(21).

About 39.7% of the vaccinated beneficiaries developed PVS within 2 days of vaccination. Parallel findings were reported by Kamal D et al., (19). In the present study most (35.9%) of the participants suffered from PVS for 1-3 days and only 0.9% for more than 7 days. Almost similar findings suggested by Riad A et al., regarding the duration of side-effects (22).

After review of literature (19),(22),(23) the socio-demographic factors like age, gender, co-morbidities were found relevant with PVS, hence these factors were checked for significance level with PVS. Again no such references were found indicating PVS varied according to other socio-demographic variables like religion, occupation, education and type of family. In present study the onset of PVS among participants differ significantly (p-value <0.05) according to their age, gender, co-morbidities, interval between COVID-19 vaccination and past COVID-19 infection and type of COVID-19 vaccine. The onset of PVS in another study among healthcare workers was inversely correlated with the age group (r-value=-0.202; p-value=0.033), and directly correlated with the total number of non communicable diseases (r-value=0.018; p-value=0.914) (22).

Although, the biological mechanism for the higher incidence of PVS among female is not clear, it may be related to genes, hormones, environmental and immunologic factors (23). However, no peer reviewed published data has been found declaring the association of PVS with type of COVID-19 vaccine. This study could not find statistical significance according to age and co-morbidities with duration of PVS. But in another study, the duration of side-effects was significantly and directly correlated with age (r-value=0.097; p-value=0.006), the number of medical treatments (r-value=0.122; p-value<0.05) and the number of side-effects (r-value=0.256; p-value<0.001) (22).

Since, this study was a hospital based study among people attending to get vaccinated, vaccine acceptance was 100%. Higher and lower levels of acceptance were found across the different countries which have been tabulated in (Table/Fig 12) (24),(25),(26),(27),(28),(29),(30).

The most common motivational factors of vaccination in this study were fear of COVID-19 infection (61.2%), availability of vaccine at free of cost (34.2%), self-motivation (31.3%) and fear of hospitalisation (26.8%). World Health Organization (WHO) report has identified almost similar factors for COVID-19 immunisation (31). Another research by Kalam MA et al., also corroborated with this findings of the present study (32).

The present study found that motivational factors significantly vary (p-value <0.05) among different age, gender, religions, occupations, educations and persons with comorbidities. A study conducted by Jacob et al in India revealed that willingness for COVID-19 vaccination was strongly associated (p-value <0.01) with income, past COVID-19 infection, perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, trust in authority, cost of vaccine and safety of vaccine (33). The socio-demographic factors were also found significant for pandemic vaccine acceptability in Bangladesh (34), the US (35), and Japan (36).

The major strength of this study was, it reflected the vaccinated individuals with different socio-demographic variables in West Bengal, India. It also tried to explore the factors influencing onset and duration of post vaccination symptoms, which can help further to identify the priority groups needed special attention at vaccination centres and also to advise the vaccinated people beforehand to allay their fear of side-effects.

Limitation(s)

One of the few limitations of this study was being a hospital based study it included only the vaccinated individuals. Thus, the true proportion of vaccine acceptance could not be assessed. Another methodological limitation was use of online questionnaire, which may cause self-selection bias due to filling up only by the highly motivated participants. The self reporting of collected data may introduce information bias.

Conclusion

Most of the adverse events following COVID-19 immunisation were reported to be mild and self-limited and predominantly duration of symptom was shorter within 72 hours. This message should be percolated to reduce the worries about unforeseen side-effects of COVID-19 vaccine. While the higher motivational factors were found to be the fear of COVID-19 infection or self-motivation, messages from social media or community health workers were negligible. So, these modes of communications must be enhanced and directed to all community people to prevent spread of misinformation. Due to the hospital setting of the study the vaccine acceptance was full. But a community based study is highly recommended to explore the reasons of vaccine hesitancy; which ultimately improves the COVID-19 vaccination drives in India in large.

Acknowledgement

Authors would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the hospital authorities for their kind support during the research work. Authors are thankful to the participants for their patience and co-operation to complete the online questionnaire.

References

1.
Chakraborty C, Sharma AR, Bhattacharya M, Sharma G, Lee SS. The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: A zoonotic prospective. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2020;13(6):242-46. [crossref]
2.
Chakraborty C, Sharma AR, Sharma G, Bhattacharya M, Saha RP, Lee SS, et al. Extensive partnership, collaboration, and teamwork is required to stop the COVID-19 outbreak. Arch Med Res. 2020;51(7):728-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Saha RP, Sharma AR, Singh MK, Samanta S, Bhakta S, Mandal S, et al. Repurposing drugs, ongoing vaccine, and new therapeutic development initiatives against COVID-19. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:1258. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Bhattacharya M, Sharma AR, Patra P, Ghosh P, Sharma G, Patra BC, et al. Development of epitope based peptide vaccine against novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-COV-2): Immunoinformatics approach. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):618-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in India as of February 28, 2022, by type (in millions)Available fromhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1248301/india-covid-19-vaccines-administered-by-vaccine-type/ Last Accessed 12th December 2021.
6.
Kausar A, Parveen SS, Afreen U, Hussain SM. Vaccine perception: Acceptance, hesitancy, beliefs and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccination among medical students. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine. 2021;08(04):949-59.
7.
Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior - A systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005-2016. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0170550. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Nguyen T, Henningsen KH, Brehaut JC, Hoe E, Wilson K. Acceptance of a pandemic influenza vaccine: A systematic review of surveys of the general public. Infect Drug Resist. 2011;4:197-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Yaqub O, Castle-Clarke S, Sevdalis N, Chataway J. Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;112:01-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Dubé E, MacDonald NE. Vaccine acceptance: Barriers, perceived risks, benefits, and irrational beliefs. In The Vaccine Book, 2nd ed.; Bloom, BR., Lambert, P., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Chapter 26; pp. 507-28. [crossref]
11.
Lau JTF, Yeung NC, Choi KC, Cheng MY, Tsui H, Griffiths S. Factors in association with acceptability of A/H1N1 vaccination during the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic phase in the Hong Kong general population. Vaccine. 2010;28:4632-37. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Zijtregtop EAM, Wilschut J, Koelma N, Van Delden JJM, Stolk RP, Van Steenbergen J, et al. Which factors are important in adults' uptake of a (pre)pandemic influenza vaccine? Vaccine. 2009;28:207-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1983;19:469-79. [crossref]
14.
Rosenstock IM. The Health Belief Model: Explaining Health Behavior through Expectancies; Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, Eds; The Jossey-Bass Health Series; Jossey-Bass/Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA; 1990;39-62.
15.
Saudi-arabia-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-situation-demographics. Available from: https://datasource.kapsarc.org/explore/dataset/saudi-arabia-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-situation-demographics/ Accessed on December 12, 2021.
16.
Larson HJ, Cooper LZ, Eskola J, Katz SL, Ratzan S. Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. Lancet. 2011;378(9790):526-35. [crossref]
17.
Kamal MA, Sarkar T, Khan MM, Roy SK, Khan SH, Hasan MM, et al. Factors affecting willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine among adults: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. Journal of Health Management. 2021;01-13. [crossref]
18.
Tamysetty S, Babu GR, Sahu B, Shapeti S, Ravi D, Lobo E, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence: Findings from slums of four major metro cities of India. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;10(1):60. Doi: 10.3390/vaccines10010060. PMID: 35062720; PMCID: PMC8781952. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Kamal D, Thakur V, Nath N, Malhotra T, Gupta A, Batlish R. Adverse events following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine (COVISHIELD) amongst healthcare workers: A prospective observational study. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2021;77:283-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, Flaxman AL, Folegatti PM, Owens DR, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): A single-blind, randomized, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2021;396(10267):1979-93. [crossref]
21.
Ella R, Reddy S, Blackwelder W, Potdar V, Yadav P, Sarangi V, et al. Efficacy, safety, and lot-to-lot immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBV152): interim results of a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:2173-84. [crossref]
22.
Riad A, Pokorná A, Attia S, Klugarová J, Koščík M, Klugar M. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine side effects among healthcare workers in the Czech Republic. J Clin Med. 2021;10(7):1428. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
De Martinis M, Sirufo MM, Suppa M, Di Silvestre D, Ginaldi L. Sex and gender aspects for patient stratification in allergy prevention and treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1535. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Wong LP, Alias H, Wong PF, Lee HY, AbuBakar S. The use of the health belief model to assess predictors of intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to pay. Hum VaccinImmunother. 2020;16(9):2204-04. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Harapan H, Wagner AL, Yufika A, Winardi W, Anwar S, Gan AK, et al. Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in Southeast Asia: A cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Front Public Health. 2020;8:381. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Wang J, Jing R, Lai X, Zhang H, Lyu Y, Knoll MD, et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Vaccines (Basel). 2020;8(3):482. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Abedin M, Islam MA, Rahman FN, Reza HM, Hossain MZ, Hossain MA, et al. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 among Bangladeshi adults: Understanding the strategies to optimize vaccination coverage. PloS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0250495. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Sherman SM, Smith LE, Sim J, Amlôt R, Cutts M, Dasch H et al. COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021;17(6):1612-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Al-Mohaithef M, Padhi BK. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Saudi Arabia: A web-based national survey. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2020;13:1657-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
La Vecchia C, Negri E, Alicandro G, Scarpino V. Attitudes towards influenza vaccine and a potential COVID-19 vaccine in Italy and differences across occupational groups, September 2020. Med Lav. 2020;111(6):445-48.
31.
World Health Organization. (2020). Behavioural considerations for acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines: WHO technical advisory group on behavioural insights and sciences for health, meeting report, 15 October 2020. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337335. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
32.
Kalam MA, Davis TP Jr, Shano S, Uddin MN, Islam MA, Kanwagi R, et al. Exploring the behavioral determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among an urban population in Bangladesh: Implications for behavior change interventions. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8):e0256496. [crossref] [PubMed]
33.
Jacob J, Stephen S, Issac A. Determinants of Willingness for COVID-19 Vaccine: Implications for enhancing the proportion of vaccination among Indians. Cureus. 2021;13(5):e15271. Doi:10.7759/cureus.15271. [crossref]
34.
Mahmud S, Mohsin M, Khan IA, Mian AU, Zaman MA. Knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and perceived risk about COVID-19 vaccine and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257096. [crossref] [PubMed]
35.
MalikAA, McFadden SM, Elharake J, Omer SB. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinical Medicine. 2020;26:100495. Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100495. Epub 2020 Aug 12. PMID: 32838242; PMCID: PMC7423333. [crossref] [PubMed]
36.
Machida M, Nakamura I, Kojima T, Saito R, Nakaya T, Hanibuchi T, et al. Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(3):210. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57598.17027

Date of Submission: May 06, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jun 18, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Aug 08, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 11, 2022
• Manual Googling: Aug 02, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 05, 2022 (9%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com