Evidence mapPaperPMID 39832812Full record

ArticleNursing & health sciences2025

Nursing and Midwifery Students' COVID-19 Vaccine Regrets and Future Vaccination Intentions: A Mixed Methods Study.

Ali Tayhan, Esra Bozhan Tayhan, Damla Şahin Büyük

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing & health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ali TayhanDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4527-8714
Esra Bozhan TayhanDepartment of Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1554-9421
Damla Şahin BüyükDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0623-3951

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regret over COVID-19 vaccine decisions is a post-pandemic phenomenon that needs further research. This mixed-method research was conducted to examine nursing-midwifery students' COVID-19 vaccine decision regret and their intention to get vaccinated in the next pandemic. The research includes quantitative and qualitative research processes. In the first phase, a quantitative (cross-sectional) study was conducted, collecting data from 602 participants who met the inclusion criteria. In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants. Data were collected using the Decision Regret Scale and semi-structured interview form. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test, one-way anova test, and inductive content analysis, and reported using Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study. In the study, it was determined that 96.3% of the participants had received the COVID-19 vaccine and 50.0% regretted getting vaccinated. As a result of the analysis of qualitative data, the following themes emerged that could reveal the reasons for vaccine regret; forced compliance, a strange pandemic, unknown effects, and vaccine hesitancy. Students' experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to increase negative attitudes towards their vaccines.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesEmotionsIntentionMidwiferyStudents, NursingVaccinationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID‐19future pandemicvaccine regret

Identifiers

PMID39832812
PMCPMC11745843

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.