1

PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19 VACCINE AMONG NON-

MEDICAL FRONTLINE WORKERS

An UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the
College of Nursing and Midwifery of Iligan Medical Center College
San Miguel Village, Palao, Iligan City

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing

By

GUMAMA, AMERA I.

IBRAHIM, ALYANA JOHANA S.

March 2022
 2

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that we Ibrahim, Alyana Johana S., Gumama, Amera I., Saidamin

Amina G., assume full responsibility over the work entitled: “PERCEPTION AND

ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19 VACCINE AMONG NON-MEDICAL

FRONTLINE WORKERS” submitted as a requirement for the degree  Bachelor of

Science in Nursing at the College of Nursing and Midwifery the College of, Iligan

Medical Center College, that the work is our own, that this is original except as specified

in the acknowledgements, end notes, or in the references and that this has never been

submitted to this or any other school for a degree or other requirements.

       

GUMAMA, AMERA G.

         

 IBRAHIM, ALYANA JOHANA S.

          

         SAIDAMIN, AMINA G.
 3

APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled: “PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19
VACCINE AMONG NON-MEDICAL FRONTLINE WORKERS” prepared and
submitted by Alyana Johana S. Ibrahim, Amera I. Gumama, Amina G. Saidamin in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing
has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval.

Maria Cristina Darlyn Q. Docog RN MAN

Research Adviser

Maria Cristina Darlyn Q. Docog, RN MAN

Panel Member
  Monica T. Diago, RN MN April Lizel A. Zaldivar,RN MAN 
          Panel Member                   Panel Member

Kim P. Suan, RN
          Panel Member

Approved and accepted in partial fulfillment of requirements for degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE AND NURSING. 
                                                                                              

Elizabeth L. Alagar, RN MAN 

Dean of the College of Nursing and Midwifery
 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, praises and thanks to God, the Almighty, for His showers of
blessings throughout our research work to complete the research successfully.
The authors would like to express their deep and sincere gratitude to our research
supervisor, Mr. Kim P. Suan, RN for the excellent guidance, unselfish support, for the
patience in checking and correcting our drafts to improve this study. Thank you so much,
sir. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under his guidance. We are
extremely grateful for what he has offered for our research. 
To the members of the panel committee Prof. Elizabeth L. Alagar, RN, MAN
dean of the college of nursing and midwifery, for her encouragement and motivation to
finish this research study. 
Mrs. Maria Cristina Darlyn Docog, RN, MAN, Mrs. Monica T. Diago, RN,
MN, and Mrs.April Lizel A. Zaldivar,RN MAN research instructors, we thank you so
much, we would not finish this study without the knowledge you’ve taught to us, your
positive comments, and suggestions, which undoubtedly helped us to improve this study.
To our beloved family for their unlimited love, support, and trust and for believing that
we can succeed in all the hardship we’ve been through these years. We appreciated the
sacrifices for educating and preparing us for our future. No words can express how
thankful are we that we had a family like them.

Thank you so much!

GUMAMA, AMERA I.
IBRAHIM, ALYANA JOHANA S.
 5

DEDICATION

          This research is wholeheartedly dedicated to our respective parents, who have been

our constant source of inspiration and gave us strength when we thought of giving up,

who continually provide their moral, spiritual, emotional, and financial support.

To our brothers, sisters, mentor, friends, and classmates who shared their words of

advice and encouragement to finish this study.

              And lastly, we dedicated this project to God Almighty our creator, our strong

pillar, our source of inspiration, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. He has been the

source of our strength throughout this program and on His wings only have we soared.
 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page
Certificate of originality
Approval sheet
Acknowledgement
Dedication
Table of contents
List of figures
Abstract
      1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
Conceptual Framework
Schematic Diagram
Statement of the Problem
Hypothesis 
Scope and Delimitation
Significance of the Study
Definition of Terms
      2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature 
Related Studies 
Theoretical Framework
      3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research Environment
Participants of the Study
 7

Research Instrument
Research Protocol
Data Gathering Procedure
Statistical Treatment of Data
4 PRESENTATION OF DATA ANALYSIS
5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Letters
Appendix B Survey Questionnaire
CURRICULUM VITAE
 8

TITLE: PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19 VACCINE AMONG

NON-MEDICAL FRONTLINE WORKERS
AUTHORS: AMERA I GUMAMA, ALYANA JOHANA S. IBRAHIM

ABSTRACT

The study focused on perception and acceptance of Covid-19 vaccine

among non-medical frontline workers. The study determined (a) the demographic
profile of the respondents, (b) assess the perception of the respondents on the
COVID-19 vaccine in terms of safety and effectiveness, (c) assess the personal
factors affecting the vaccine acceptance among the respondents in terms of past
experiences with vaccines and health related reasons, (d) the external factors
affecting the vaccine acceptance among the respondents in terms of knowledge
and information of the vaccine; and external observed experiences, (e) the social
factors affecting the vaccine acceptance among the respondents in terms of social
influence and influence of religion, (f)  assess the level of vaccine acceptance
among the respondents, (g) the significant difference between the level of vaccine
acceptance, (h) the significant relationship between the level of vaccine
acceptance and personal factors; the level of vaccine acceptance and
environmental factors; and the level of vaccine acceptance and social factors. The
study utilized descriptive-correlation research design, adopted survey
questionnaire, and one-hundred forty-eight (148) non-medical frontliners. Results
showed that the level of vaccine acceptance significantly differ by their age
(r=0.00, p=.279) and their religion (r=0.54, p=-.174). Results showed that past
experiences with vaccines had significant correlation to vaccine acceptance
(p=0.00, r= .269). The study concluded that the respondents perceived the
COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and effective. Vaccine acceptance among the non-
medical frontliners was positively observed since vaccination among workers are
now mandatory in Iligan City. Furthermore, the level of vaccine acceptance of the
non-medical frontliners was positively influenced by past experience with
vaccines.

Keywords: Covid-19 vaccines, non-medical frontliners, vaccine acceptance

 9

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a severe public health

problem since 2020. By October 2020, there were more than 35 million confirmed cases

of the illness. Over a million people died from it, mainly among the higher-risk group of

people, obese persons, smokers, and those with cancer, chronic renal illness, heart

disease, immunocompromised states, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus are

all examples (Leighman, 2021).

In addition to its adverse effects on health, COVID-19 also has a significant

economic impact that should not be ignored. Globally, it has resulted in a substantial

decline in an increase in unemployment and workforce. These adverse effects are pushing

pharmaceutical companies to create a vaccine quickly. More than 50 COVID-19 vaccine

prospects were being made as of December 2020, and several vaccinations to prevent

COVID-19 infection were already approved. The vaccination campaign has started in

several nations, including the Philippines.

Vaccines were effective interventions that helped to reduce the global epidemic.

Public health experts must deal with the issue of public vaccination acceptability as soon

as possible. Despite this, given the numerous instances of reinfection recorded,

individuals continue to have concerns about vaccination effectiveness and safety,

particularly the duration of protection and stability against COVID-19. In addition, the

security and safety of vaccines are questioned, given their fast growth. Rapid vaccine

development has previously been associated with unfavorable problems.

 10

Previous research has demonstrated that Vaccine fear is a common problem with

several justifications (Lane et al., 2018). The most frequent reasons were perceived risks

vs. benefits, certain religious convictions, ignorance, and lack of awareness. The

aforementioned factors can be used to explain why people accept COVID-19. According

to recent research, there is a high connection between the desire to obtain coronavirus

immunizations and the perceived safety of the COVID-19 vaccine (Karlsson et al., 2021),

a relationship between a negative attitude regarding COVID-19 vaccines and a refusal to

take them, as well as a connection between religion and a reduced intention to obtain

immunizations.

There is little information based on public approval and attitudes toward the

COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of their availability (Courage, 2021). Compared to

medical frontliners who have direct access to and knowledge of the vaccines, low

vaccination rates among non-medical frontliners have been observed worldwide. The

effective management of the pandemic appears to be directly related to non-healthcare

workers' vaccination acceptance. Thus, this study aimed to determine the level of vaccine

perception and acceptance among non-medical front liners in Iligan City.

Conceptual Framework

The study's schematic diagram shows the interplay between the variables

included. The study determined the perception and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines

among non-medical frontline workers in Iligan City. The independent variables of the

study included the responders' demographic profile in terms of age, gender, civil status,

religion, educational background, and nature of work; the perception of the respondents
 11

on the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of safety and effectivity; and the factors affecting

their vaccine hesitancy such as personal factors, external factors, and social factors.

Personal factors included the respondent’s personal knowledge of the vaccines. External

factors included factors that influenced the respondents’ decision not to try the vaccine.

Meanwhile, social factors pertained to the influence of family members, peers,

and work colleagues. The dependent variable included the level of vaccine acceptance

among the respondents. Figure 1 below presents the general framework of the study.
 12

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

1. Demographic Profile
1.1. Age
1.2. Gender
1.3. Civil Status
1.4. Religion
1.5. Educational Background
1.6. Nature of work

2. Perception
2.1. Safety
2.2. Effectivity Vaccine Acceptance
3. Personal Factors

3.1 Vaccine Experiences in the

Past and
3.2 Reasons Concerning Health

4. External Factors

4.1 Vaccine Knowledge and

Information; and
4.2 Observed External
Experiences

5. Social Factors  

5.1 Social Influence

5.2 Influence of Religion

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Study

 13

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to determine the perception of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines

among non-medical front liners in Iligan City. Specifically, this seeks to:

1. Assess the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 age,

1.2 gender;

1.3 civil status;

1.4 religion;

1.5 Educational background; and

1.6 Nature of work

2. Determine the perception of the respondents on the COVID-19 vaccine in terms

of:

2.1 safety; and

2.2 effectivity

3. Determine the personal factors that affect the vaccine acceptance among the

respondents in terms of:

3.1 Vaccine Experiences in the Past and

3.2 Reasons Concerning Health

4. Determine the external factors that affect the vaccine acceptance among the

respondents in terms of:

4.1 Knowledge and Information of the Vaccine; and

4.2 External Observed Experiences

 14

5. Determine the social factors that affect the vaccine acceptance among the

respondents in terms of:

5.1 Social Influence

5.2 Influence of Religion.

6. Assess the level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents.

7. Determine if there is a huge difference between the level of vaccine acceptance

among the respondents when grouped according to profile and the level of

vaccine acceptance.

8. Determine if there is a notable relationship between the Level of Vaccine

Acceptance and personal factors; the level of vaccine acceptance and

environmental factors; and the level of vaccine acceptance and social factors.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were measured and tested at a 0.05 level of

significance:

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the level of vaccine acceptance among

the respondents when grouped according to profile and level of vaccine

acceptance.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the level of vaccine acceptance and

perception; the level of vaccine acceptance and personal factors; the level of

vaccine acceptance and environmental factors; and the level of vaccine

acceptance and social factors.

 15

Significance of the Study

The present study is expected to bring significant contributions to the following:

Non-Medical Front Liners. The results of the study would give them an idea of

how their co-workers perceived the vaccine as well.

Community. The community would be able to know more information and facts

on the COVID-19 vaccine through the responses of the non-medical front liners. Through

this, they would be able to validate their personal knowledge of the vaccine.

Health Workers. They would be able to learn information on how to handle the

non-medical frontliners.

Local Government Units (LGU). The result of the study would help LGU

sectors in Iligan City to gain knowledge on the perceptions of their non-medical front

liners on the COVID-19 vaccine that may have affected their vaccine acceptance. This

would help them extend actions on disseminating public facts and information on the

vaccine for the rest of the community to know.

Department of Health. This study would provide information to the health

sectors regarding vaccine acceptance among non-medical front liners, which could help

them strengthen their actions on the problems of vaccine hesitancy.

Future Researchers. The results of the study would give them relevant

information about the perception of non-medical front liners on the COVID-19 vaccine,

which could help them expand more on the information gathered.

 16

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study focused on the perception and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine

among non-medical front liners. The study included the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of age, gender, civil status, educational background, and nature of

work. It also includes the perception of the non-medical front liners on the COVID-19

vaccine; and the factors that affect their vaccine acceptance. The study also employed

descriptive-correlation analysis and utilized structured survey questionnaires. It included

randomly selected one-hundred (150) non-medical front liners in Iligan City from the A4

priority group list of the vaccination roll out.

The A4 priority group lists included: (a) A4.1 (Private Sector: Private workers

who work outside away from their homes); (b) A4.2 (Public Sector: Employees that are

working in government agencies and instrumentalities, such as government-owned or

controlled corporations and local government units; and (c) Informal Sector: Workers and

self-employed who work outside their homes and also those that is working in private

households.

Due to the rising number of cases in Iligan City, the distribution of the survey

was completed through online surveys because there might be a problem if the

respondents brought the questionnaires home, and there was no assurance that they would

successfully retrieve them because of their busy schedules.

 17

The limitations of the study included time constraints because of the present

situations in Iligan City and the presence of the color-coding arrangements. Also,

problems with insufficient previous research studies were also a challenge because the

vaccine was just introduced to the country this year. Additionally, only non-medical

front-liners were utilized as participants to answer the online survey.

Definition of Terms

The following terms used in the study are defined operationally and conceptually:

The following terms used in the study were defined operationally:

COVID-19 Vaccine. In this study, this referred to the different types of vaccines

available in the Philippines.

Demographic profile. In this study, this referred to the personal profile of the

respondents during the conduct of the study, including their age, gender, civil status,

religion, educational background, and nature of work.

External Factors. In this study, this referred to the environmental aspects that

influenced the perception and acceptance of the non-medical frontline workers on the

COVID-19 vaccine. This included knowledge and information on the vaccines and

observed experiences of other people on the vaccines provided.

Acceptance. In this study, pertained to the non-medical frontline workers’

approval of the COVID-19 vaccine.

 18

Perception. In this study, this referred to how the non-medical front liners were

aware of the COVID-19 vaccines. Under this category, it included how the respondents

recognized the safety and affectivity of the vaccines.

Personal Factors. In this study, personal experiences of vaccines and health-

related reasons for the COVID-19 vaccines were considered personal factors. Health-

related reasons referred to the respondents' existing health conditions, such as their

preexisting conditions.

Social Factors. In this study, these refer to the information from the near

environment, such as family members and friends, etc., that may have influenced the

perception and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines among the non-medical frontliners.

This included subcategories of social influence and religious influence.

 19

Chapter 2

REVIEW OR RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

The following section includes discussions on COVID-19 and COVID-19

vaccines from other research relevant to the present study.

Related Literature

2.1 History of the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 emerged in the City of Wuhan in China on December 31 st 2019. The

situation worsened due to numerous infected cases in the Huanan Seafood Market

(Aljazeera, 2020). While the virus's characteristic and nature was still unclear, the

Chinese government maintained track of illnesses having symptoms comparable to

pneumonia. There were around forty instant cases over the period of thirty days. In

China, this virus was formerly known as the SARS virus, which claimed the lives of

about 770 people between the years of 2002 and 2003.

This virus causes respiratory problems and has an incubation period of 2 to 14

days (Lauer et al., 2020). Its symptoms include a dry cough, sore throat, runny nose,

shortness of breath, fever, muscular and joint pain, diarrhea, and, in some cases, loss of
 20

taste and smell. Depending on the disease's development, as it is an infectious virus, it is

suggested that the affected stay at home while seriously ill and follow basic medical

measures while being separated from the population and community. And, as in many

situations, the condition worsened gradually, leading to pneumonia and breathing

difficulties (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2020).

The coronavirus is transmitted and acquired in the following ways: when a person

comes into contact with secretions or droplets from individual sneezing or coughing and

it float down the respiratory tract; and when a person comes into physical contact with

the virus through their hands and takes it to their mouth. As a measure, it is recommended

to continue washing your hands and avoid touching your face to remove the risk if a

person is accidentally exposed to it. Adopting aseptic practices such as utilizing alcoholic

hand sanitizers might boost the likelihood of being virus-free (Krisinformation, 2020).

2.2 Covid-19 Vaccine Acceptance

In various nations, COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for use in the general

populace in late 2020 and early 2021. Now that COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates

have been studied globally, they are comparatively well established. For instance, in a

recent systematic review, Ecuador, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China had the highest rates

of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the general population (>90% for all countries). In

contrast, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Russia, Poland, the United States, and France had the

lowest rates. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates differ globally by increased vulnerability

to and seriousness of COVID-19, as well as numerous socio-demographic factors such as

 21

gender, age, education, income, and employment, according to the following studies from

the general population (Murphy et al., 2021).

According to recent reports, many healthcare professionals (HCWs) may be

hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine or delay getting it. Because these vaccines elicit a

wide immune response involving a variety of antibodies and cells, it is anticipated that

they will offer at least some protection against new virus variants. COVID-19 vaccines

are either currently being developed or have already received approval. As a result, virus

modifications or mutations shouldn't render vaccines ineffective. If any of these

vaccinations prove to be less efficient against one or more variations, the vaccines'

composition can be changed to defend against these variants (Roy et al., 2020).

For COVID-19, more vaccine candidates are being developed continuously than

ever for an infectious disease. They are all striving to develop virus immunity and

resistance, and some may be able to stop transmission. They achieve this by triggering an

immune response to an antigen, a molecule present in the virus. The antigen in the case of

COVID-19 is typically the distinctive spike protein that can be found on the virus's

surface and that it typically uses to help it invade human cells. Clinical trials are being

conducted on four different types of vaccines: whole virus, protein subunit, viral vector,

and nucleic acid (RNA AND DNA). Some try to sneak the antigen into the body, while

others employ the host's own cells to produce the viral antigen (Wang et al., 2020).

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is the first brand of the COVID-19

vaccine. People 12 years of age and older are advised to get the vaccine. People who have

experienced a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or a rapid allergic reaction, even if it

was not serious or something severe, to any ingredient in an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine
 22

(such as polyethylene glycol) should not receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. After

receiving the first dose, they should not receive a second dose of either of the mRNA

COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, those who experience an immediate allergic reaction,

including hives, swelling, or wheezing, within four hours of receiving the vaccination

(respiratory distress). The usual negative effects of the vaccine are exhaustion or fatigue,

headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea throughout the rest of the body, as well

as pain, redness, and swelling in the arms after receiving the shot. Usually, these side

effects appear a day or two after receiving the vaccination. Negative side effects might

influence a person’s ability or capacity to do daily work or activities, but they should go

away in a few days (Wang et al., 2020).

Another brand of vaccine is the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Its name is

mRNA-1273, and ModernaTX, Inc. manufactured it. There should be two shots given 28

days apart, one month apart. People over the age of 18 are advised to get the Moderna

vaccine. Like Pfizer, the usual negative effects of the vaccine are redness, pain, swelling

in the arms when one had a shot; tiredness or fatigue, headache, chills and fever, muscle

pain, and nausea throughout the rest of the body (Chew et al., 2021).

The Philippines also offers the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson &

Johnson. U.S. and the CDC Following a brief pause, the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) advises that use of Johnson & Johnson's Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19

Vaccine resume in the United States. The risk of a rare adverse event known as

thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome may be increased, according to reports of

side effects following the use of the J&J/Janssen vaccine (TTS). The majority of cases of

this severe condition, which causes blood clots and low platelets, have been reported in
 23

adult women under 50. Some other COVID-19 vaccine options or alternatives are

available, and this risk has not been seen. Still, women under 50 in particular, should be

aware of the uncommon but increased risk of this adverse event. One should be on the

lookout for potential signs of a blood clot with low platelets for three weeks following

vaccination. Among these negative effects are breathlessness or difficulty breathing,

chest discomfort or pain, leg swelling, persistent abdomen or stomach pain, easy bruising,

and tiny blood spots under the skin outside the injection site (DOH, 2021).

2.3 Factors Affecting Vaccine Acceptance

Government or Policy decisions, administrators of vaccination or immunization

campaigns, community leaders and religious leaders, medical professionals and public

health authorities or officials, members of civil society organizations, media outlets like

newspapers, and online platforms like Facebook are just a few of the groups that have an

impact on vaccination rates. By fostering environments that are more or less supportive

of vaccination, these actors can encourage or discourage it. Therefore, it is crucial to

consider how the actions of system actors (such as those in charge of organizing

vaccination sites or determining clinic hours) may affect the actions of the general

populace.

There is evidence that removing obstacles and making vaccination easy will

increase vaccine uptake, particularly for the vast majority of people who are not

purposefully avoiding vaccination. What may appear to be hesitation, resistance, or even

opposition may be a reaction to the costs or inconveniences associated with getting

immunized.
 24

Environmental factors may include location, such as whether the vaccination is

administered in a nearby, convenient location. Another is cost, which refers to whether

there are any associated financial or nonfinancial costs (for the vaccine itself, travel, or

opportunity costs of missing work). The people's times are also taken into account. It also

takes into account how well the vaccination process went. The information about

vaccines is another, and last, but not least are the laws and rules pertaining to health.

There are several ways to create environments that will encourage widespread

vaccination in light of these factors. In order to support people's intended behaviors and

circumstances, services and policies must be designed to remove barriers from the

environment. For instance, vaccination rates will likely be higher if all students are

vaccinated by default in schools, with the option for those who object to doing so to opt

out than if only those who choose to do so are vaccinated. Making vaccines easily

accessible in secure, comfortable, and convenient settings—such as "drop-in" clinics

close to frequented locations—can also promote uptake. Making sure that appropriate

safety measures are clearly in place can promote vaccination in the current pandemic.

People have expressed concerns about seeking medical attention because they fear

contracting COVID-19 in medical facilities. These precautions include encouraging good

hand hygiene, maintaining physical distance, wearing masks, ensuring rooms are

properly ventilated, and avoiding crowds.

Although it is essential and probably will increase vaccination acceptance and

uptake, an enabling environment is unlikely to be sufficient. It should be accompanied by

focused, reliable, and unambiguous messaging from reliable sources that show getting

vaccinated is crucial, advantageous, simple, quick, and affordable. Of course, ease, speed,
 25

and affordability will vary from place to place, so health systems must be ready to

remove obstacles to the supply and delivery of high-quality services. They must also

ensure that community and health care workers are well-trained and supported.

Sometimes negative social influences and/or insufficiently positive ones result in

vaccine acceptance and uptake barriers. Beliefs about what members of one's social

group do or what they approve and disapprove of can be among these influences (social

norms). For instance, if the majority of a community is against vaccination because they

think it doesn't work or the side effects will be severe, this sends a bad message to those

who might otherwise be in favor of or neutral about vaccination. On the other hand, the

majority of a community will send a strong message to others who might otherwise be

reluctant to vaccinate if they support vaccination.

The media's dominant narratives can distort how people perceive what the

majority think and do. For instance, it is possible to encourage anti-vaccine sentiments so

that they are mistakenly perceived as representing a widespread or even majority view.

Relatively small but vocal groups express these sentiments. In the wake of a pandemic,

where individuals may be limited to their houses, perceptions about other people's

behavior are important—such as wearing masks and putting themselves apart—are more

likely to be inferred from popular culture, social media, and online information than they

are to come from face-to-face interactions. To prevent people from mistakenly believing

that this is the predominate viewpoint, it is crucial to educate the media on the value of

providing context when reporting on anti-vaccine sentiment.

 26

People's social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, or Tiktok, which

include family, friends, co-workers, and other contacts or associates, and the information

they seek, might influence their choice to be vaccinated. When a sizable portion of one's

social network did not support vaccination, there was found to be a decreased likelihood

of vaccine uptake. On the other hand, it has been discovered that social pressure and

encouragement from people who a person respects and trusts increase the uptake of

vaccines. One set of people or individuals may influence another, and the two can

persuade a third, and so on, causing a readiness and willingness to get immunized or an

unwillingness to be immunized to spread. The effectiveness of behavior change

initiatives can be increased by focusing on those centrally situated in the web or network,

such as health professionals, and have a bigger effect on vaccination behavior.

The decision to vaccinate is typically motivated by various elements, including

infection's perceived risk and severity, vaccine confidence, values, and emotions.

Although social and environmental contexts can also affect vaccination motivation, the

motivational factors themselves are the main focus of this section.

People will be less inclined to receive the vaccination if they believe their risk of

contracting COVID-19 is low or the consequences of contracting the disease won't be

severe. Some individuals may attempt to compare the risk of contracting an infection

with the risk of receiving a new vaccine and conclude that COVID-19 is lower. Since

most people find it challenging to comprehend and evaluate risks, these risk perceptions

are frequently created using mental shortcuts. For instance, the availability heuristic is

frequently used by people to assess the likelihood of events. As a result, based on

personal experience or rumors, they may exaggerate some risks (such as the likelihood
 27

and effects of contracting an infection) while underplaying others (such as the likelihood

of adverse events following vaccination).

Related Studies

Chew et al. researched healthcare workers' attitudes toward and willingness to

receive the COVID-19 vaccination. They assessed the healthcare professionals' readiness

to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The survey's findings showed that more than 95% of

healthcare professionals were willing to get vaccinated. These respondents were more

likely to believe that the pandemic was severe, think that the vaccine is safe, worry less

about money, think less negatively about the vaccine, have a higher pro-social mindset,

and have more faith in medical professionals. In a multivariable analysis, high pro-

sociality, low vaccine harm, and a high perceived pandemic risk index each served as

independent predictors. Most healthcare professionals in Asia are willing to get

vaccinated against COVID-19. The main motivators are perceived COVID-19

vulnerability, low potential risk of vaccine harm, and pro-sociality. These results might

be used to guide vaccination policies in other nations.

Sallam (2021) evaluated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy internationally in a simple

and straightforward systematic evaluation of vaccination uptake rates. The review's goal

was to provide an up-to-date assessment of COVID-19 vaccination uptake rates

worldwide. Ecuador (97.0%), Malaysia (94.3%), Indonesia (93.3%), and China (91.3%)

had the highest uptake percentages of COVID-19 immunization among adults

 28

representing the general population. On the other hand, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Russia,

Poland, the United States, and France had the lowest rates of COVID-19 vaccination

uptake. Only eight surveys of doctors and nurses were done, and vaccination uptake

percentages varied from 27.7% in the Democratic Republic of Congo to 78.1% in Israel.

Most survey studies among the general population stratified by country revealed a level

of approval of COVID-19 immunization of 70% (29/47, 62%).

Biswas et al. (2021) investigated the kind and degree of COVID-19 vaccination

hesitancy among healthcare workers in another study. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy

was reported to range from 4.3 to 72% among healthcare workers internationally

(average=22.51% across all trials with 76,471 participants). Most studies cited

vaccination safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects as the primary reasons

healthcare professionals refuse to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Most studies also

revealed that men, those over 50, and people with doctorates (i.e., physicians) were more

inclined to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. People are more likely to receive the

COVID-19 vaccine if they receive direct patient care, have a greater perceived risk of

developing COVID-19 or have already had influenza vaccination.

Synthesis

Vaccination is one of the most important public health achievements. In many

parts of the world, it is accountable for eliminating smallpox and managing infectious

diseases. The negative effects of social networks and the proliferation of false

information may be to blame for this low acceptance in our study—the WHO has referred

to the spread of false information since the first COVID-19 cases as an infodemic.
 29

Healthcare and non-healthcare workers may have formed vaccine hesitancy as a

result of hearing about unsatisfactory vaccine quality and false information spread by the

media, which included rumors about the extermination of various people through

vaccination. This hesitancy can affect their decisions to get vaccinated and to recommend

the vaccine to their patients.

Engagement with local communities in creating and applying specialized

strategies to support vaccination uptake is a recurring theme. Successful strategies depend

on collaborating with communities, developing trust, and ensuring that messages come

from reliable advocates.

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the following theories: Pamela Reed’s Theory of Self-

Transcendence and Dorothy Johnson’s Behavioral System Model.

To improve well-being, Pamela Reed's Theory of Self-Transcendence for Nursing

Practice focuses on supporting self-transcendence. Other scientific theories, such as

psychology, may also speak to self-transcendence. However, the inclusion of the whole

person's well-being in the context of health experiences is what sets this particular theory

apart as a nursing theory. According to the theory, there may be a readiness or need to

expand (or transcend) the self-boundary to integrate those changes to feel well-being

when people experience life-threatening illnesses or health-related changes that heighten

their awareness of vulnerability. Although people frequently do this on their own, nurses

and other medical professionals can assist in difficult situations.

 30

The theory was appropriate in relation to the present study because it describes

the ongoing developmental relationship between human being and their environments. It

also offers strategies for structuring and understanding the rising complexity that enters

one's life when confronted with serious health-related events.

The behavioral system model developed by Dorothy Johnson was first put forth in

1968 to foster effective and efficient behavioral functioning. Additionally, it was

mentioned that nursing was concerned with the human being as a whole and that this was

the specific order of knowledge needed. To clarify the definitions of the behavioral

system model, the conceptualization of the behavioral system model for nursing was

published in 1980. In that conceptual framework, it was discussed that the four goals of

nursing are to help the patient whose behavior is in line with social expectations, who can

change his behavior in ways that support biological imperatives, who can benefit as much

as possible from the knowledge and skills of the doctor while ill, and whose behavior

does not indicate unneeded trauma as a result of illness.

The behavioral system model, which emphasized that the idea of a human being

was defined as a behavioral system that aimed to adjust to achieve, maintain

continuously, or regain balance to the steady-state that is an adaptation, is relevant to the

current study. The mental and psychological health of those who have suffered traumatic

events won't be balanced until they have made the best adjustments to the changes. The

theory also held that although the term "environment" is not used explicitly, it is implied

that it covers all aspects of the human system's surroundings, including internal stressors.
 31

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the study's research design, research setting, respondents,

research instrument and its reliability, data collection techniques, statistical tools, and

scoring methodology.

Research Design

This study utilized the descriptive-correlational method to determine the vaccine

hesitancy on COVID-19 vaccines among non-medical front liners in Iligan City. As a

descriptive type of research, it used adapted and modified questionnaires as the main

instrument. The study employed correlation analysis since it assessed the significant

relationship between variables.

The descriptive-correlational research design is a statistical measurement for

determining the relationship between two or more variables. It indicates how one variable

may predict another. Still, correlation does not imply causation, meaning that just

because two events are somewhat correlated does not mean that one must necessarily

lead to the other.

Locale of the Study

 32

The study was conducted in the different institutions in Iligan City where there

are non-medical front liners. These included: food delivery drivers, supermarket workers,

restaurant workers, security guards, garbage collectors, and cleaners. These jobs were

composed of people exposed mostly to the public amid the pandemic.

Iligan City is a first-class, highly urbanized city located in Northern Mindanao,

Philippines. The researchers of the study were also a permanent resident of the city and

that made them familiar with most of the places. Furthermore, the city has 37%
 33

vaccination rate as of October 2021, which is still far from the target percentage of

vaccinated residents.

Source: Google Maps

Figure 2. Location Map of the Study

Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were purposively selected from one-hundred forty-

eight (148) non-medical front liners in Iligan City. The participants were selected if they

belong to any of the following: at least 18 years of age and permanent residents of Iligan

City. Below is the distribution of the target participants:

Institution No. of target participants

Private Sector 49
Public Sector 50
Informal Sector 49
Total 148

The researcher developed the idea of randomizing respondents by citing Formann

(1984), who suggests including at least 2^d (preferably 5.2^d) respondents, where d is the

number of variables in the segmentation base. When the clusters are equal in size,

according to Qiu and Joe (2009), the sample size should be at least 10 times the

segmentation base's variables times the number of clusters (10•d.k, where d is the number

of segmentation variables and k is the number of clusters or segments).

Data Gathering Procedures

 34

The researchers secured permission from the Dean of the College of Nursing in

Iligan Medical Center College to perform the necessary procedures and the signing of the

needed consent letters. After the Dean had approved the intent letter, the researchers

prepared an informed consent for the selected respondents. To ensure the validity of the

research instrument, it was consulted to at least three (3) panel experts followed by pilot

testing to 30 randomly selected front-liners in the city who were subjected to statistical

treatment using the Cronbach Alpha test for internal consistency.

Selected respondents were provided with the informed consent forms, and their

email addresses were asked so they could complete the online survey. Online survey was

utilized to ensure the safety of everyone involved, and proper health protocols were

strictly followed to avoid health risks for the participants. Moreover, the purpose of the

study was included in the informed consent stating the benefits of the study. After the

data gathering, the researchers tabulated the data for statistical analysis.

The respondents were recruited based on their nature of work and under the A4

priority group list of vaccination.

Research Instrument

The study utilized an adapted and modified questionnaire for vaccine hesitancy

from the study of Biswas, Mustapha, Khubchandani, & Price (2021) entitled: The Nature

and Extent of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers and from the

study of Bono et al., (2021) entitled: Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance:

An International Survey among Lowand Middle-Income Countries. The perception of the

respondents on the COVID-19 vaccine and the factors affecting the vaccine acceptance of
 35

the non-medical front-liners were based on the studies mentioned. The questionnaire

included four parts. Part 1 included the demographic profile of the respondents in terms

of age, gender, civil status, religion, educational background, and nature of work. Part II

included the perception of the respondents in terms of safety and effectivity. Part 3

included the factors affecting vaccine hesitancy among the respondents in terms of

personal factors. Part 4 included the factors affecting the vaccine hesitancy among the

respondents in terms of external factors, and Part 5 included the factors affecting the

vaccine hesitancy among the respondents in terms of external factors and social factors.

Part 6 included the level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents. The research

instrument was measured using a five-point Likert scale.

To establish content validity, an expert review panel consisting of three to five

individuals may be asked to review the questionnaires. In analyzing the results of the data

gathered, the following scoring guide was utilized:

Scoring Guide for the Perception of the Respondents on Covid-19 Vaccine

Scaling Numbers Statistical Range Description
5 4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree
4 3.50-4.49 Agree
3 2.50-3.49 Moderately Agree
2 1.50-2.49 Disagree
1 1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree

Research Protocol

Before conducting this study, the researcher performed the standard research

protocol to ensure the validity and reliability of the research findings. These were the

following:
 36

1. The researcher requested consent and approval from the adviser after a careful

assessment and review of the manuscript for the thesis.

2. The researcher asked for approval from the Dean of the College of Nursing of the

Iligan Medical Center College for the schedule for the defense of the proposal after a

thorough evaluation and review of the manuscript.

3. After the proposal defense, the researcher accomplished and submitted the approved

research proposal and letters necessary for conducting the study.

4. After the Dean’s approval, the researcher gave another letter of permission and

consent to conduct the study.

5. The researcher provided a copy to the adviser for the review of the quality and

relevance of the paper before the preparation of the final presentation.

6. After the adviser approved the final presentation, it was further reviewed for the

fullness of the writing.

7. After the approval of the adviser and panel, it was submitted for anti-plagiarism and

grammar testing.

8. The researcher forwarded the final output of the paper to the assigned editor. After

the corrections were made, the researcher submitted the final paper to the adviser and

research panel for approval for binding.

Statistical Tools

The data was reviewed and tabulated, and analyzed to obtain the required

information. In order to analyze data for the study, the following statistical tools were

applied:
 37

Statement problem 1 to describe the demographic profile of the respondents,

frequency, and percentage were applied.

Statement problem 2 to determine the perspective of the respondents on the

COVID-19 vaccine in terms of safety and efficiency was determined using Mean and

Deviation Standard Analysis.

Statement problem 3 to evaluate the personal factors influencing vaccination

compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms of previous experiences with

vaccines and health-related reasons were determined using Mean and Deviation Standard

Analysis.

Statement problem 4 to evaluate the external factors influencing the vaccine

compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms of knowledge, information,

and understanding of the vaccine; and observed external experiences were determined

using Mean and Deviation Standard Analysis.

Statement problem 5 to evaluate the social factors influencing vaccine compliance

and acceptance among the respondents in terms of social influence and influence of

religion were determined using Mean and Deviation Standard Analysis.

Statement problem 6 to assess the level of vaccine acceptance among the

respondents was determined using Mean and Deviation Standard Analysis.

Statement problem 7 to determine if there is a significant difference between the

level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents when grouped according to profile

was determined using Pearson Moment Correlation.

 38

Statement problem 8 to determine if there is a significant relationship between the

level of vaccine acceptance and personal factors; the level of vaccine acceptance and

environmental factors; and the level of vaccine acceptance and social factors were

determined using Pearson Moment Correlation.

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the results and discussions of the data gathered from the

selected participants.

Problem 1. Determine the Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Variables Age Frequency Percentages
Age 18-25 years old 41 27.7
26-30 years old 59 39.9
31-35 years old 26 17.6
36-40 years old 13 8.8
40 years old and 9 6.1
above
Total 148 100
Gender Male 61 41.2
Female 87 58.8
Total 148 100
Civil Status Single 38 25.7
Married 82 55.4
Others 28 18.9
Total 148 100
Religion Roman Catholic 70 47.3
Islam 40 27
SDA 15 10.1
Others 23 15.5
 39

Total 148 100

Educational Background Elementary Graduate 0 0
High School 53 35.8
Graduate
College Graduate 95 64.2
Total 148 100
Nature of Work A4.1 49 33.1
A4.2 50 33.8
A4.3 49 33.1
Total 148 100
The respondents' ages are displayed in Table 1 along with their frequency and

percentage distribution. According to the table, respondents between the ages of 18 and

25 made up 27.7% of the sample, followed by respondents between the ages of 26 and

30, who made up 39.9%, respondents between the ages of 31 and 35, who made up

17.6%, respondents between the ages of 36 and 40 who made up 8.8%, and respondents

between the ages of 40 and 65 who made up 6.1 percent. The data showed that most

respondents were young adults, with a majority of respondents between the ages of 26

and 30. Additionally, it implied that their age distribution generally followed the norms.

According to the results, males make up sixty-one (61) or 41.2 percent of the

population, while females make up eighty-seven (87) or 41.2 percent. According to the

data, female front-liners in non-medical fields outnumber males by a large margin. This

suggests that more women than men participated in the study as respondents.

In terms of their civil status, results indicated that those who are single constitute

thirty-eight (38) or 25.70 percent; those who are married constitute eighty-two (82) or

55.4 percent, and those under others constitute twenty-eight (28) or 18.9 percent. The

data mean that married non-medical respondents were dominant during the study,

implying that they opted to work amidst the pandemic to provide for their families.
 40

In terms of the respondents’ religion, the results indicated that those who are

Roman Catholic constituted seventy (70) or 47.3 percent; those who are Islam constituted

forty (40) or 27 percent; those who are Seventh-Day Adventist constitute fifteen (15) or

10.1 percent; those who practice other religions constituted twenty-three (23) or 15.5

percent. The data mean that majority of the non-medical front liners were Roman

Catholic.

In terms of the respondents’ educational background, the results indicate that

there was no elementary graduate among the respondents; those who were high school

graduates constitute fifty-three (53) or 35.8; those who were college graduates constitute

ninety-five (95) or 64.2. This implied that more of the respondents were college

graduates implying that they were aware of their need to comply with vaccination

requirements for work.

In terms of their nature of work, those under A4.1 category comprised forty-nine

(49) or 33.1 percent, those under A4.2 category comprised fifty (50) or 33.8 percent; and

those under A4.3 comprised forty-nine (49) or 33.1 percent. The A4 priority group lists

included: (a) A4.1 (Private Sector: Private workers who work outside away from their

homes); (b) A4.2 (Public Sector: Employees that are working in the government agencies

and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and local

government units; and (c) Informal Sector: Workers and self-employed who work outside

their homes and also those working in private households.

Problem 2. Determine the perception of the respondents on the COVID-19 vaccine

in terms of safety and effectivity.
 41

Table 2 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ perception of

the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of safety. The results revealed that the respondents

generally responded “agree” to the indicators which implied that they perceived the

COVID-19 vaccine as a safe vaccine with an overall mean of 3.58 and SD=0.49.

As presented in the results, the respondents’ believed that the COVID-19 vaccines

have manageable side effects (M=4.36, SD=0.48) interpreted as “agree” and got the

highest mean. Meanwhile, they disagreed that they had no worries regarding the possible

side effects of COVID-19 vaccination, which would interfere with their usual activities

(M=2.42, SD=0.6) and got the lowest mean.

Table 2
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on the COVID-19 Vaccine
in Terms of Safety

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive

Deviation Rating
1. I believe that there is adequate proof 2.96 0.51 Moderately
about the safety of the COVID-19 Agree
vaccine
2. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccines 4.36 0.48 Agree
have manageable side effects
3. I believe that the benefits of the 4.17 0.42 Agree
COVID-19 vaccines are far greater than
the risk of experiencing an adverse
effect
4. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccine 4.01 0.35 Agree
can prevent COVID disease-related
hospitalization.
5. I have no worries regarding the possible 2.42 0.6 Disagree
side-effects of COVID-19 vaccination
that it would interfere with my usual
activities.
Overall Mean 3.58 0.49 Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)
 42

It can be analyzed from the results that regarding the safety of the COVID-19

vaccines, the respondents were aware that the different vaccines have manageable side

effects depending on person to person. And since they were aware of these side effects,

they responded that they were worried about them.

Doubts about a vaccine's efficacy and safety are a fundamental issue in public

health, and they may impact efforts to contain the pandemic. It is crucial for everyone

involved in the process, from the person receiving the vaccine to the caregivers and

medical professionals, to comprehend the various side effects that vaccination may bring

on. Zewudi et al. (2021) claim that because vaccines are typically administered to healthy

populations who might not immediately benefit from them, safety is emphasized in the

public's perception of the risks and benefits of immunization. Furthermore, since the

COVID-19 vaccine's development, there have been persistent rumors that the vaccines

are linked to a variety of post-vaccination side effects (such as infertility), which continue

to spread and be discussed on various social media platforms and affect the public's

perception of the vaccines' overall safety and efficacy.

Table 3
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on the COVID-19 Vaccine
in Terms of Effectivity

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive

Deviation Rating
1. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccine will 3.91 0.58 Agree
prevent me from having the disease.
2. I think that the vaccine will prevent me from 3.14 0.39 Moderately
having serious COVID-19 manifestations. Agree
3. I believe that COVID-19 vaccine will lessen my 3.74 0.50 Agree
risk of contracting the virus.
4. I believe that after administration of the 2.79 0.51 Moderately
vaccine, I will have less worries and will be Agree
more confident that my immune system can
 43

combat the COVID-19 disease.

5. I am confident about the protection provided 2.78 0.42 Moderately
by COVID-19 vaccines, in terms of duration. Agree

Overall Mean 3.27 0.48 Moderately

Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 3 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ perception of

the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of effectivity. The results revealed that the respondents

generally responded “moderately agree” to the indicators which implied that they

perceived the COVID-19 vaccine as moderately effective with an overall mean of 3.27

and SD=0.48.

As presented in the results, the respondents’ believed that the COVID-19 vaccine

will prevent me from having the disease (M=3.91, SD=0.58) interpreted as “agree” and

got the highest mean. Meanwhile, they moderately agreed that they were confident about

the protection provided by COVID-19 vaccines in terms of duration (M=2.78, SD=0.42)

and got the lowest mean.

It can be analyzed that the respondents believe that COVID-19 vaccines may help

people prevent having the virus. Still, they perceived that they do not guarantee a person's

protection. These perceptions of the effectiveness of the vaccines may be affected by

several testimonies posted on social media about the alleged failures of the vaccines to

protect a person from being infected.

Nguyen et al. (2020) noted that although empirical evidence is lacking, several

cases of deaths following vaccination are being reported through public sites and the

media, which causes confusion in the industry and raises public concerns about
 44

vaccination safety and efficacy. Vaccination campaigns have been impacted in several

nations worldwide by rumors regarding the unfavorable side effects of the vaccines,

including reports of low platelet counts, internal bleeding, blood clots, immune

thrombocytopenia (ITP), and cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). Such rumors would

cause people to lose faith in the vaccine and negatively impact medical professionals' and

non-medical personnel's acceptance of the shot.

Problem 3. Determine the personal factors influencing the vaccine compliance

and acceptance among the respondents in terms of past experiences with vaccines
and health related reasons.

Table 4
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Personal Factors Influencing the Vaccine
Compliance and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of Past Experiences with
Vaccines
Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive
Deviation Rating
1. I believe that vaccines can prevent many 3.03 0.30 Moderately
diseases. Agree
2. I have confidence in the vaccination program in 3.37 0.50 Moderately
the Philippines. Agree
3. I am confident that our government will not 2.84 0.50 Moderately
provide faulty/fake vaccines. Agree
4. I never had any past doubts and concerns 4.39 0.49 Agree
regarding vaccinations.

Overall Mean 3.41 0.44 Moderately

Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 3 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ personal

factors influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms
 45

of past or previous experiences with vaccines. The results revealed that the respondents

generally responded “moderately agree” to the indicators, which implied that they

perceived their past experiences with vaccines constituted to their perception of the

COVID-19 vaccines (M=3.41, SD=0.44).

As presented in the results, the respondents’ believed that never had any past

doubts and concerns regarding vaccinations (M=4.39, SD=0.49) interpreted as “agree”

and got the highest mean. Meanwhile, they moderately agreed that they were confident

that the government will not provide faulty or fake vaccines (M=2.84, SD=0.50) and got

the lowest mean.

It can be analyzed that despite the risks of the vaccines and the manageable side

effects, the respondents did not experience any worse experiences of vaccinations in the

past. However, their concerns about the vaccines revealed they had doubts about faulty or

fake vaccines.

There have been misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccines that have been

going around before the vaccines were implemented. Conspiracy theories and rumors

about fake vaccines can influence vaccine acceptance and reluctance. Monitoring online

information about COVID-19 vaccine candidates can help identify and combat vaccine

misinformation in real-time.

Table 4
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Personal Factors Influencing the Vaccine
Compliance and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of Health-Related
Reasons
Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive
Deviation Rating
1. I have sufficient knowledge of the
vaccines on its effect on health. 2.74 0.48 Moderately
Agree
2. I am confident with my well-being. 3.57 0.50 Agree
 46

3. I am taking maintenance medicines. 1.72 0.45 Disagree

4. I am concerned with my preexisting

health conditions 1.81 0.39 Disagree

Overall Mean 2.46 0.46 Disagree

Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)

4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 4 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ personal

factors influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms

of health-related reasons. The results revealed that the respondents generally responded

“disagree” to the indicators which implied that they do not have health related reasons to

accept the COVID-19 vaccines (M=2.46, SD=0.46).

As revealed, they responded “agree” that they were confident with their well-

being (M=3.57, SD=0.50) which got the highest mean. It was also indicated that they

“disagree” that they were taking maintenance medicines (M=1.72, SD=0.45). It can be

analyzed that the respondents were confident with their well-being, meaning they take

good care of themselves and adhere to health protocols.

According to Nzaji et al. (2020), an individual’s fear of her unknown health

condition may affect his of her decision to get vaccinated. People’s false information

about vaccines also instills negative beliefs about adverse effects in their minds.

Problem 4. Determine the external factors influencing the vaccine compliance and
acceptance among the respondents in terms of knowledge, information, and
understanding of the vaccine; and external observed experiences.

Table 5
Weighted Mean Distribution of the External Factors Influencing the Vaccine Compliance
and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of Knowledge, Information, and
Understanding of the Vaccine
 47

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive

Deviation Rating
I believe in the COVID-19 vaccine's alleged
negative side effects. 3.03 0.30 Moderately Agree
The media presented and reported on the
manageable side effects of the COVID-19 3.37 0.50 Moderately Agree
vaccine.
I read several articles online about the
COVID-19 vaccine that added to my 2.84 0.50 Moderately Agree
willingness to get myself vaccinated.
The use of social media provided me
confidence that the COVID-19 vaccines were 4.39 0.49 Agree
of great quality.
Overall Mean 3.41 0.44 Moderately Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 5 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ external

factors influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms

of knowledge, information, and understanding about the vaccines. The results revealed

that the respondents generally responded “moderately agree” to the indicators which

implied that they do not have enough information about the vaccines (M=3.41, SD=0.44).

As revealed in the results, they “agree” that the use of social media provided them

confidence that the COVID-19 vaccines were of great quality (M=4.39, SD=0.49) which

got the highest mean. Meanwhile, they “moderately agree” that they read several articles

online about the COVID-19 vaccine that added to their willingness to get themselves

vaccinated (M=2.84, SD=0.50) which got the lowest mean.

The availability of vaccines as the initial measure in controlling the spread of

coronavirus is welcomed by many people. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of false

information about the vaccines and their development on social media. Positive
 48

information about vaccinations is frequently noticeably lacking, even though negative

information about them is typically easy to find in the form of lead stories on mass and

social media (Winfried, 2021).

Accordingly, not all non- healthcare workers read online articles and journals and

focus solely on what they see and hear in the news and on social media. Half-truths,

speculative assumptions, and deliberate misinformation based on conspiracy theories can

all be used to describe the effects of vaccination. Misinformation can influence people's

perceptions and decisions, even if they are outside what we currently understand

scientifically. Not addressing it can create a vicious cycle of unfavorable news (Kukreti et

al., 2021).

Table 6
Weighted Mean Distribution of the External Factors Influencing the Vaccine Compliance
and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of External Observed Experiences

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptiv

Deviation e Rating
1. I know some health workers who
encouraged me to get vaccinated. 4.33 0.47 Agree
2. I have observed some testimonies of the
manageable side effects of the vaccine 3.00 0.63 Moderatel
y Agree
3. Healthcare workers give adequate
information and assurance regarding the 3.70 0.73 Agree
covid-19 vaccine.
Overall Mean 3.68 0.61 Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 6 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ external

factors influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms
 49

of external observed about the vaccines. The results revealed that the respondents

generally responded “agree” to the indicators which implied that they had enough

observations about the vaccines (M=3.68, SD=0.61).

Results revealed that the respondents agreed that they know some health workers

who encouraged them to get vaccinated (M=4.33, SD=0.47) which got the highest mean;

and they also agreed that healthcare workers give adequate information and assurance

regarding the covid-19 vaccine (M=3.70, SD=0.73). Meanwhile, they “moderately agree”

that they have observed some testimonies of the manageable side effects of the vaccine

(M=3.00, SD=0.63). It can be analyzed that the respondents had positive external

experiences from health care workers and social testimonies that influenced their vaccine

acceptance. Healthcare workers related to or near them did not fail to encourage them to

have themselves vaccinated.

According to Pataka et al. (2021), misinformation can build public distrust in the

government, policymakers, health officials, and pharmaceutical companies and doubts

about disease transmission, prevention, lethality, and vaccination safety. Many members

of the general public, including non-healthcare professionals, have been subjected to

conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the government intentionally produced a new

coronavirus or that medical organizations exaggerated and misled COVID-19's lethality

for economic, financial, commercial, and political benefit and advantage. Such false

information casts doubt on the government's authority and undercuts efforts to increase

COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Thus, direct communication from other HCWs, whether in the role of a personal

doctor or a co-worker, may be particularly successful in reducing vaccine hesitancy..

 50

Problem 5. Determine the social factors influencing the vaccine compliance and
acceptance among the respondents.
Table 7
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Social Factors Influencing the Vaccine Compliance
and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of Social Influence
Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive
Deviation Rating
1. My family agreed to have me vaccinated. 4.03 0.49 Agree
2. My friends are confident about trying the 3.13 0.84 Moderately Agree
vaccine.
3. My co-workers are willing to be 4.16 0.48 Agree
vaccinated.
4. My friends influenced me to get 4.11 0.52 Agree
vaccinated.
5. The majority of my friends and co- 4.03 0.47 Agree
workers agree to get vaccinated.
Overall Mean 3.89 0.56 Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)
Table 7 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ social factors

influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms of social

influence. The results revealed that the respondents generally responded “agree” to the

indicators which implied that their acceptance of the vaccines were influenced by the

people around them with an overall mean of (M=3.89, SD=0.56).

As reflected in the results, they responded “agree” that their co-workers are

willing to be vaccinated (M=4.16, SD=0.48), which got the highest mean. They also

“moderately agree” that their friends are confident about trying the vaccine (M=3.13,

SD=0.84). It can be analyzed that the respondents were socially influenced by their co-

workers, meaning that their workplaces may have mandated vaccination among

employees.
 51

According to Hailu et al. (2021), mandatory vaccination requirements among

public and private workers amid the pandemic forced workers to have themselves

vaccinated despite their hesitancy about the vaccines. As such, to help mitigate the virus's

spread and show respect to their co-workers, some non-healthcare workers chose to get

vaccinated for compliance.

Table 8
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Social Factors Influencing the Vaccine Compliance
and Acceptance among the Respondents in Terms of Influence of Religion
Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive
Deviation Rating
1. Our religious leaders are in favor of the 4.00 0.00 Agree
vaccine.
2. I have no personal religious reasons for 4.19 0.46 Agree
not taking the vaccine.
3. Our religious leaders encourage each 4.18 0.49 Agree
family to get vaccinated.
4. Our religion has no objections with us 4.18 0.39 Agree
getting vaccinated.
5. The majority of our religious leaders and 4.20 0.40 Agree
people agree to be vaccinated.
Overall Mean 4.15 0.35 Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)
3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 8 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ social factors

influencing vaccine compliance and acceptance among the respondents in terms of

influence of religion. The results revealed that the respondents generally responded

“agree” to the indicators which implied that their acceptance of the vaccines were

influenced by their respective religions with an overall mean of (M=4.15, SD=0.35).

As revealed, they “agree” to all indicators. They agreed that majority of their

religious leaders and people agree to be vaccinated (M=4.20, SD=0.40) and got the

highest mean. They also agreed that the religious leaders favor the vaccine (M=4.00,
 52

SD=0.00) and got the lowest mean. It can be analyzed that reasons for vaccine acceptance

related to religion did not influence the respondents.

There have been related studies interconnecting the roles of religion and religious

leaders in vaccine acceptance. According to Toni and Inusa's 2009 study, it has been

discovered that involving religious leaders in health-related interventions improves the

participation of their congregations in these interventions and thereby fosters favorable

health outcomes. Organizations like UNICEF now advocate enhancing immunization

trust by, among other things, partnering with religious leaders and groups to achieve a

high level of vaccination coverage globally (UN, 2020). Religious leaders command

great respect, and their influence can persuade followers to accept or reject immunization.

Problem 6. Assess the level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents.

Table 9
Weighted Mean Distribution of the Level of Vaccine Acceptance among the Respondents

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive

Deviation Rating
1. I am willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine 4.05 0.23 Agree
the next few months.
2. I am going to enlist at one of our 4.09 0.33 Agree
community's vaccination facilities.
3. Getting COVID-19 vaccine is currently a 4.20 0.40 Agree
possibility for me.
4. I am relieved to witness the COVID-19 4.19 0.39 Agree
vaccine's manageable side effects from
the people I know, and I am inspired to
get myself vaccinated.
5. I am confident in the information 3.04 0.56 Moderately Agree
provided about the Covid-19 vaccines.
6. I am eager to receive the COVID-19 4.23 0.42 Agree
vaccine as soon as it becomes available.
Overall Mean 3.97 0.39 Agree
Legend: 5- 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree) 2- 1.50-2.49 (Disagree)
 53

4- 3.50-4.49 (Agree) 1- 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree)

3- 2.50-3.49 (Moderately Agree)

Table 9 presents the weighted mean distribution of the respondents’ level of

vaccine acceptance. As indicated in the results, the respondents generally agreed that they

have positive acceptance of the vaccines as reflected in the overall mean (M=3.97,

SD=0.39). The results implied that the respondents were willing to have themselves

vaccinated.

It was revealed that they agreed that getting COVID-19 vaccine is currently a

possibility for them (M=4.20, SD=0.40) which got the highest mean. Meanwhile, they

moderately agreed that they were confident in the information provided about the

COVID-19 vaccines (M=3.04, SD=0.56). It can be analyzed that as employees, they were

required to contribute to saving the lives of their community.

Any vaccination program's success relies on several connected and interrelated

actions. These include vaccine development, efficacy and safety testing, quick

distribution to the populace, and recipient acceptance. The latter issue of vaccine uptake,

which can be described as vaccine acceptance, refusal, or hesitancy (Gatto et al., 2021), is

crucial. The belief that preventing COVID-19 in their co-workers would keep the

workforce healthy significantly impacted non-healthcare workers' acceptance of vaccines.

They ought to help safeguard clients, customers, and guests from the COVID-19 illness

at the front (Woyessa et al., 2021). As a result, they consent to get vaccinated.

Problem 7. Determine if there is a significant difference between the level of vaccine

acceptance among the respondents when grouped according to profile.

Table 10
 54

Significant Difference Between the Level of Vaccine Acceptance Among the Respondents
when Grouped According to Profile
Variables Correlation P-Value Interpretation
Coefficient
Age .279* 0.00* Significant
Gender -0.05 0.54 Not Significant
Civil Status 0.15 0.06 Not Significant
Religion -.174* 0.03* Significant
Educational Background 0.05 0.56 Not Significant
Nature of Work 0.00 1.00 Not Significant
***correlation is significant at 0.05 level

Table 10 presents the significant difference between the level of vaccine

acceptance when respondents were grouped according to profile at 0.05 level of

significance. Results showed that the level of vaccine acceptance significantly differ by

their age (r=.279, p=0.00) and their religion (r=-.174, p=0.03). Consequently, the level of

vaccine acceptance did not significantly differ by their gender (p=0.06, r=-0.05), civil

status (p=0.03, r=0.15), educational background (p=0.56, r=0.05), and nature of work

(p=1.00, r=0.05). It can be analyzed that the level of vaccine acceptance significantly

differs by their age. This means that those aged 18-25 years had a varying response to

those with 40-65 years of age. The same situation for the believer of Roman Catholicism,

Islam, and other religions.

Researchers cited that age affects vaccine acceptance. Young adults were more

accepting than the old ones because of some health-related reasons (Biswas et al., 2021).

Moreover, related studies have connected the roles of religion and religious leaders in

vaccine acceptance. According to Toni and Inusa (2009), active participation of religious

leaders in health-related interventions has been reported to strengthen and improve

congregational participation in these interventions and thus promote positive health

outcomes. To achieve a high level of vaccination coverage globally, organizations such

 55

as UNICEF are now advocating for increased trust in immunization by, among other

things, seeking collaboration with religious leaders and groups (UN, 2020). Religious

leaders are held in high regard, and their authority can persuade members of their

congregations to accept or reject vaccination.

Meanwhile, the level of vaccine acceptance significantly differed by gender, civil

status, educational background, and nature of work. This means that males may have

lower or higher vaccine acceptance levels than females. This also means that the singles

may have a lower or higher level of vaccine acceptance than the married ones. Likewise,

college graduates may have lower or higher vaccine acceptance than high school

graduates. Also, those in the A4.1 category may have a lower or higher vaccine

acceptance than those in the A4.2 category.

Problem 8. Determine if there is a significant relationship between the level of

vaccine acceptance and personal factors; environmental factors; and social factors.
Table 11
Significant Relationship Between the Level of Vaccine Acceptance Among the
Respondents and Personal Factors; External Factors; and Social Factors
Variables Correlation P-Value Interpretation
Coefficient
1. Personal Factors
1.1 Past Experiences with Vaccines 0.269 0.00** Significant
1.2 Health Related Reasons 0.02 0.79 Not Significant
2. External Factors
2.1 Knowledge and Information of -0.13 0.13 Not Significant
Vaccines
2.2 External Observed Experiences -0.08 0.35 Not Significant
3. Social Factors
3.1 Social Influence -0.06 0.47 Not Significant
3.2 Influence of Religion 0.07 -0.15 Not Significant
***correlation is significant at 0.05 level

Table 11 presents the significant relationship between the level of vaccine

acceptance and personal factors; environmental factors; and social factors. The results
 56

showed that personal factors in terms of health-related reasons (p=0.79, r=0.02), external

factors in terms of knowledge and information of vaccines (p=0.13, r=-0.13) and external

observed experiences (p=0.35, r=-0.08) and social factors did not significantly correlate

to the respondents’ level of vaccine acceptance.

Consequently, in terms of personal factors, past experiences with the vaccines

(p=0.00, r= .269) significantly correlate to their level of vaccine acceptance. This means,

among all the indicators, past experiences with vaccines were the only contributing factor

to the level of vaccine acceptance.

Previous experiences with vaccines and vaccine services influence vaccine

acceptance rates in communities. Personal and community vaccination experiences are

known to shape public opinion toward vaccines. Moreover, vaccine compliance may be

influenced by the quality of immunization or vaccination services. Previous vaccination

and vaccination service experiences were discovered to be influential factors in the

public's positive feedback on vaccination safety and effectiveness (Bono et al., 2021).
 57

Chapter 5

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and recommendations

based on the analyzed and interpreted data.

Summary

This study focused on determining the perception and vaccine acceptance among

non-medical frontliners in Iligan City. The study aimed to determine the (a)

demographics profile of the respondents, (b) their perception of the COVID-19 vaccines,

(c) factors affecting their vaccine acceptance, including personal, external, and social

factors, (d) the level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents; (e) determine the

significant difference between the level of vaccine acceptance when respondents are
 58

grouped according to profile, and (f) determine the significant relationship between the

respondents' vaccine acceptance and personal, external, and social factors.

One-hundred forty-eight (148) respondents were utilized from the A4 priority list

of vaccination. The study also utilized survey questionnaires to obtain data from the

selected respondents.

Findings

Based on the study's findings, the following conclusions were reached:

1. Most respondents were 26-30 years old, 58.8 percent were females, 55.4 percent

were married, 47.3 percent were Roman Catholic, 64.2 percent were college

graduates, and 33.8 percent belonged to the A4.2 category.

2. On the respondent’s perception of the COVID-19 vaccines, the overall mean for

safety was M= 3.58 interpreted as agree and the overall mean for effectivity of

vaccines was M=3.27 interpreted as agree.

3. On personal factors affecting vaccine acceptance, past experiences with vaccines

constituted an overall mean of M=3.41, SD=0.44; and the overall mean for health-

related reasons was M=2.46, SD=0.46 interpreted as “disagree”.

4. On external factors affecting vaccine acceptance, knowledge and information

about the vaccines constituted M=3.41, SD=0.44 interpreted as agree; and

observed external experiences of vaccines constituted M=3.68, SD=0.61

interpreted as agree.
 59

5. On social factors affecting vaccine acceptance, the overall mean for social

influence was M=3.89, SD=0.56 interpreted as “agree”, and the overall mean for

influence of religion was M=4.15, SD=0.35 interpreted as agree.

6. On the level of vaccine acceptance among the respondents, the overall mean

(M=3.97, SD=0.39) was interpreted as agree.

7. On the significant difference between the level of vaccine acceptance when

respondents were grouped according to profile, results showed that the level of

vaccine acceptance significantly differed by their age (r=0.00, p=.279) and their

religion (r=0.54, p=-.174). Consequently, the level of vaccine acceptance did not

differ by their gender (r=0.06, p=-0.05), civil status (r=0.03, p=0.15), educational

background (r=0.56, p=0.05), and nature of work (r=1.00, p=0.05).

8. On the significant relationship between the level of vaccine acceptance and

personal, external, and social factors, results showed that past experiences with

vaccines significantly correlated to vaccine acceptance (p=0.00, r= .269).

Conclusions

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the respondents perceived the

COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and effective. Vaccine acceptance among the non-medical

frontliners was positively observed since vaccination among workers is now mandatory

in Iligan City. Furthermore, the level of vaccine acceptance of the non-medical frontliners

was positively influenced by past experience with vaccines.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations were made:

 60

1. It is recommended that community members may be provided with free seminars

about the different COVID-19 vaccines to encourage members of the community

who are not yet vaccinated.

2. It is recommended that Local Government Units (LGU) may provide free

barangay information discussions on the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines.

3. It is recommended that the Department of Health in the city may provide honest

and factual testimonies on vaccine side effects to help encourage more people to

get vaccinated.

4. It is recommended that future researchers may expound more on the findings of

the study by exploring other factors of vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy

among residents of Iligan City.

REFERENCES

Aljazeera. (2020). Timeline: How the new coronavirus spread | Coronavirus pandemic 
News. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/timeline-china-
coronavirusspread-200126061554884.html

Biswas, N., Mustapha, T., Khubchandani, J., Price, J. (2021). The nature and extent of 
Covid 19 vaccination hesitancy in healthcare workers. Journal of Community 
Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-00984-3

Bono, S.A.; Faria de Moura, Villela, E.; Siau, C.S.; Chen, W.S.; Pengpid, S.; Hasan,
MT.; 
Sessou, P.; Ditekemena, J.D.; Amodan, B.O.; Hosseinipour, M.C.; et al. Factors
Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: An International Survey among Low-
and Middle-Income Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/
vaccines9050515

Britton, K.C.; Fang, Y.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.Q.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. 
 61

(2021). Parental acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination for children under the

age of 18 years in China: Cross-sectional online survey. JMIR Pediatr. Parent.
2020.

Chew, N., Cheong, C., Kong, G. (2021). An Asia-Pacific study on healthcare workers’ 
perceptions of, and willingness to receive, the COVID-19 vaccination.
International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.03.069
Courage, K.H (2021). It’s essential to understand why some health care workers are 
putting of vaccination. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/22214210/covid-
vaccine-health-care-workers-safety-fears

Daley, M.F.; Narwaney, K.J.; Shoup, J.A.; Wagner, N.M.; Glanz, J.M. (2018). 
Addressing Parents’ Vaccine Concerns: A Randomized Trial of a Social Media
Intervention. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 55, 44–54.

Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger, (2015). Vaccine hesitancy: 

An overview. Hum Vacc Immunother. 9:1763–73. doi: 10.4161/hv.24657

Karlsson, L.C.; Soveri, A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Karlsson, L.; Karlsson, H.; Nolvi, S.; 
Karukivi, M.; Lindfelt, M.; Antfolk, J. (2021). Fearing the disease or the vaccine:
The case of COVID-19. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 172, 110590.

Krisinformation. (2020). Slow down the spread of Covid-19 - Krisinformation.se.

https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disasters-andincidents/
2020/official-information-on-the-new-coronavirus/sa-minskar-vi-smittspridningen 

Lane, S., Maacdonald, N., Marti, M. & Dumolard, L. (2018). Vaccine hesitancy around 
the globe: Analysis of three years of WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form data-
2015–2017. Volume 36, Issue 26, 18 June 2018, Pages 3861-3867

Lauer, S. A., Grantz, K. H., Bi, Q., Jones, F. K., Zheng, Q., Meredith, H. R., Azman, A. 
S., Reich, N. G., & Lessler, J. (2020). The Incubation Period of Coronavirus
Disease (2019). (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases:
Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0504 

Murphy, J., Vallières, F., Bentall, R. P., Shevlin, M., McBride, O., Hartman, T. K., 
McKay, R., Bennett, K., Mason, L., GibsonMiller, J., Levita, L., & Hyland, P.
(2021). Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine
 62

hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nature

Communications,
12(1), 1–15

Olson, O. Berry, C. & Kumar, N. (2021). Addressing Parental Vaccine Hesitancy 

towards Childhood Vaccines in the United States: A Systematic Literature
Review of Communication Interventions and Strategies.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8040590

Roy, B., Kumar, V., & Venkatesh, A. (2020). Health care workers’ reluctance to take the 
COVID-19 Vaccine: A consumer-marketing approach to identifying and
overcoming hesitancy. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.
https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.
20.0676
Sallam, M. (2021).  COVID-19 Vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic
review 
of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines 2021, 9, 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/
vaccines9020160

Wang, K., Wong, E. L. Y., Ho, K. F., et al. (2020). Intention of nurses to accept 
coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and change of intention to accept seasonal
infuenza vaccination during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-
sectional survey. Vaccine, 38(45), 7049–7056

Yaqub, Castle-Clarke, Sevdalis & Chataway (2014). Attitudes to vaccination: a 

critical review. Retrieved from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24788111/
PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19 VACCINE AMONG NON-
MEDICAL FRONTLINE WORKERS

A Survey Questionnaire
Direction: The success of this research work depends on your sincerity and cooperation to
respond. Rest assured that all data and information will be kept confidential. Please read
all the statements and rate yourself using the rating scale below. Put a check mark in the
box of your appropriate answer.

Part I. Personal Profile

Age
( ) 18-25 years old
( ) 26-30 years 
 63

( ) 31-35 years old

( ) 36-40 years old
( ) 40 -65 years old

Gender
( ) Male
( ) Female

Civil Status
( ) Married
( ) Single
( ) Others

Religion
_____________________

Educational Background

( ) Elementary Graduate
( ) High School Graduate 
( ) College Graduate

Nature of work 
( ) A4.1 (Private Sector)
( ) A4.2 (Public Sector)
( ) A4. 3 (Informal Sector)

PART II. PERCEPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS ON COVID-19 VACCINE

Instructions: Please put a check mark to your corresponding answer based on the
following: 
5-Strongly Agree 4-Agree 3-Moderately Agree 2-Disagree
1-Strongly Disagree
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
1. I believe that there is adequate proof about the safety of the
COVID-19 vaccine
2. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccines have manageable side
effects
3. I believe that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines are far
greater than the risk of experiencing an adverse effect
4. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccine can prevent COVID
disease-related hospitalization.
5. I have no worries regarding the possible side-effects of
 64

COVID-19 vaccination that it would interfere with my usual

activities.

Effectivity 1 2 3 4 5
1. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccine will prevent me from having
the disease.
2. I think that the vaccine will prevent me from having serious
COVID-19 manifestations.
3. I believe that COVID-19 vaccine will lessen my risk of
contracting the virus.
4. I believe that after administration of the vaccine, I will have
less worries and will be more confident that my immune
system can combat the COVID-19 disease.
5. I am confident about the protection provided by COVID-19
vaccines, in terms of duration. 

PART 3. PERSONAL FACTORS

Past Experiences with Vaccines 1 2 3 4 5

1. I believe that vaccines can prevent many diseases. 

2. I have confidence in the vaccination program in the
Philippines.
3. I am confident that our government will not provide faulty/fake
vaccines. 
4. I've never had any past doubts and concerns regarding
vaccinations.
Health Related Reasons
I have sufficient knowledge of the vaccines on its effect on health.
I am confident with my well-being.
I am taking maintenance medicines.
I am concerned with my preexisting health conditions

PART 4. EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Knowledge and Information of the Vaccine  1 2 3 4 5

1. I believe in the COVID-19 vaccine's alleged negative side effects.
2. The media presented and reported on the manageable side effects
of the COVID-19 vaccine.
3. I read several articles online about the COVID-19 vaccine that
added to my willingness to get myself vaccinated.
4. The use of social media provided me confidence that the
COVID-19 vaccines were of great quality.
5. I have confidence and trust in the government and its
regulatory authorities.
External Observed Experiences 
 65

1. I know some health workers that encourages me to get

vaccinated.
2. I have observed some testimonies of the manageable side
effects of the vaccine
3. Healthcare workers give adequate information and assurance
regarding the covid-19 vaccine.

PART 5. SOCIAL FACTORS

Social Influence 1 2 3 4 5
1. My family agreed to have me vaccinated.
2. My friends are confident about trying the vaccine.
3. My coworkers are willing to be vaccinated.
4. My friends influenced me to get vaccinated

5. The majority of my friends and coworkers agree to get

vaccinated.
Influence of Religion 
1. Our religious leaders are in favor of the vaccine.
2. I have no personal religious reasons for not taking the
vaccine.
3. Our religious leaders encourage each family to get vaccinated.

4. Our religion has no objections with us getting vaccinated.

5. The majority of our religious leaders and people agree to be

vaccinated.

PART 6. VACCINE ACCEPTANCE 

Indicators 1 2 3 4 5
1. I am willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine in the next few
months.
2. I'm going to enlist at one of our community's vaccination
facilities.
3. Getting COVID-19 vaccine is currently a possibility for me.
4. I'm relieved to witness the COVID-19 vaccine's manageable
side effects from the people I know, and I'm inspired to get
myself vaccinated.
5. I am confident in the information provided about the Covid-
19 vaccines.
6. I am eager to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it
 66

becomes available.

ILIGAN MEDICAL CENTER COLLEGE

College of Nursing and Midwifery
Palao, Iligan City, 9200

October 19, 2021

ELIZABETH ALAGAR, RN, MAN

The Dean
College of Nursing and Midwifery

Dear Ma’am:

The undersigned are presently conducting a research study entitled: PERCEPTION AND
ACCEPTANCE OF COVID-19 VACCINE AMONG NON-MEDICAL FRONLINE
WORKERS, among non-medical frontliners in Iligan City as partial fulfilment of the
 67

requirements for the degree, Bachelor of Science in Nursing at Iligan Medical Center College,
Pala-o, Iligan City.

In view of this, they seek permission from your good office to administer distributing survey
questionnaires among their respective respondents.

May this request serve your kindest approval. Thank you very much and may God bless you
abundantly!

Respectfully yours,

AMERA I. GUMAMA

ALYANA JOHANA S. IBRAHIM

Researchers

Noted by: Approved by:

MA’AM DARLYN Q. DOCOG ELIZABETH ALAGAR, RN, MAN

Research Adviser Dean, College of Nursing andMidwifery
Iligan Medical Center College Iligan Medical Center College

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

NAME                                  : Amera I. Gumama

GENDER                              : Female
HOME ADDRESS               : Dimayon, Pantao Ragat Lanao Del Norte
DATE OF BIRTH                : February 13, 1998
 68

PLACE OF BIRTH              : Dimayon, Pnatao Ragat Lanao Del Norte

PARENTS                            : Talib A. Gumama
                                              : Noraini A. Ipha
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
ELEMENTARY                   : Dimayon Elementary School 
                                                Pantao Ragat Lanao Del Norte
                                                March 2010
 
SECONDARY                      : Pantao Ragat-Agro Industrial High School
Pantao Ragat Lanao Del Norte
                                                 March 2014 

COLLEGE                            :  Iligan Medical Center College

                                                College of Nursing and Midwifery
                                                Bachelor of Science in Nursing

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

NAME                                  : Alyana Johana S. Ibrahim

GENDER                              : Female
 69

HOME ADDRESS               : Purok 13-A, Pala-o, Iligan City

DATE OF BIRTH                : May 3, 2000
PLACE OF BIRTH              : Malabang Lanao Del Sur
PARENTS                            : Almaira A. Sarip
                                              : Kamim S. Ibrahim
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
ELEMENTARY                   : Al-Shadiq Islamic School
Banday, Malabang Lanao Del Sur
March 2012                                               
SECONDARY                      : Malabang National High School
Campo Muslim, Malabang Lanao Del Sur
March 2016
SHS: Malabang National High School
Campo Muslim, Malabang Lanao Del Sur
March 2016
COLLEGE                            : Iligan Medical Center College
                                                College of Nursing and Midwifery
                                                Bachelor of Science in Nursing