Skip to main content

Prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among the general population in Asadabad, Iran: a cross-sectional study



Vaccination can be an essential protective measure against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) if well received by the public. Various factors affect the acceptance or refusal of vaccines. Several waves of COVID-19 caused much death in Iran. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population of Asadabad in 2021.


In this cross-sectional study, 650 people from the general population of Asadabad with a mean age of 34.6 (SD = 15.1) years were selected and included. In addition to socio-economic and demographic data, data were collected using the COVID-19 fear scale. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between the tendency to get the COVID-19 vaccine (the dependent variable) and other variables.


About 42.3% of participants were reluctant to receive the available COVID-19 vaccines. After adjusting for several covariates, there was a significant relationship between willingness to get vaccinated and family history of COVID-19 infection (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.06–3.27, p = 0.032), trust in healthcare workers (AOR = 2.07, 95% CI 1.13–3.79, p = 0.019), trust in existing vaccines (AOR = 3.94, 95% CI 2.15–7.23, p < 0.001), encouraging family members to get vaccinated (AOR = 7.6, 95% CI 4.12–14.01, p < 0.0001). Also, people infected with COVID-19 are less likely to accept vaccination (AOR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.33–0.93, p = 0.025). Also, a unit increase in the score of fear of getting the COVID-19 virus increased the odds of getting the COVID-19 vaccine by 6% (AOR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.10, p = 0.002).


The culture and context of different societies can affect the acceptance or refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on these characteristics and providing extensive education to the people, the health authorities in each community should build trust and better communicate all health information to clear any fear and remove all obstacles to increase willingness to get COVID-19 vaccination.


The rapid spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a panic-stricken pandemic worldwide [1]. To control the spread of COVID-19, governments took precautionary measures such as social distancing, quarantine of suspected and confirmed cases, travel restrictions, strict lockdowns, mandatory mask use, and hygiene [2]. Although these measures were preventive and valuable, they changed people's lifestyles and affected their physical, mental, and social well-being [3]. Finally, mass vaccination was proposed as the most effective approach to control the spread and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic [4].

Vaccination is one of the most outstanding public health achievements that has reduced mortality from many infectious diseases and led to the elimination of poliomyelitis in the United States and the eradication of smallpox worldwide. If vaccination programs have a high uptake level, the prevalence and incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) will undoubtedly be reduced. High vaccination coverage directly protects vaccinated individuals and indirectly exerts protective effects by slowing the transmission of VPD from the general population (herd safety) [5]. Most experts believe that without widespread acceptance of vaccination, the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be contained [6], and vaccination can quickly and efficiently reduce the epidemic’s burden [7, 8]. By June 12, 2021, more than 2.36 billion vaccine doses have been injected worldwide [9]. Because some people were skeptical about receiving the vaccine and some refused, there was a considerable gap between vaccination programs in different countries [10]. Vaccination hesitancy refers to any delay in accepting or refusing a vaccine despite the availability of vaccination services, which is a growing problem [11]. Doubts about vaccination are not a new phenomenon. For example, the poliomyelitis vaccination program in Pakistan faced challenges like poor vaccine quality, an active virus in the vaccine, and the ban on this vaccine from a religious point of view [12]. Another example of vaccine hesitancy occurred during the 2009 influenza A epidemic, in which officials in many parts of the Americas struggled to persuade pregnant women to get the vaccine [13]. Reluctance to getting the measles vaccine in parts of Europe, the Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in Japan and India [14], polio vaccine in parts of Nigeria [15], and Pakistan [16] are recent examples of vaccine hesitancy.

There were six waves of COVID-19 in Iran at the following times: March to June 2020 (first wave), July to September 2020 (second wave), October to December 2020 (third wave), April to June 2021(fourth wave), July to September 2021(fifth wave), and March 2022 (sixth wave). The seventh wave is already starting in Iran. By August 2022, 58.1 million people in Iran have been injected with at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and 69.1% have been fully vaccinated (received all doses) [17].

There are similar ideas about the COVID-19 vaccine. Misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on social media, such as linking the virus to 5G cell phone networks, the premature death of vaccinated people, or the pandemic is a terrorist weapon, made many people reluctant to get vaccinated [18]. Given that the decision to receive a vaccine is a complex interaction between different social, cultural, political, and personal factors, it is difficult to have a clear picture of possible attitudes about vaccination in the general population. This study investigated the prevalence of acceptance and refusal of COVID-19 vaccination and its related factors in the general population of Asadabad (one of the western cities of Iran).


Sample and setting

This cross-sectional study was conducted in November and December 2021 in Asadabad. The study sample consisted of 650 people from the general population selected by convenience sampling method from public places. Sampling was done in person. Inclusion criteria were: the ability to read and write, not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine until the time of the study, and willingness to participate. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis.


We used a form based on a literature review and consultation with several healthcare professionals to collect demographic information. The information contained in this form included: age, gender, marital status, education, underlying disease, smoking, history of infection of a person or a family member with COVID-19, death of a family member due to COVID-19, the existence of a family member as a health specialist, the impact of COVID-19 on quality of life, trust in the healthcare workers, trust in existing vaccines, advise family members to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and fear of COVID-19. To measure people's fear of COVID-19, we used the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), which included seven questions with a 5-point Likert answer (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). The scores range from zero to 35, so a higher score indicates much fear. This scale is available in both Persian and English versions, and its psychometric properties have been confirmed and reported [19].

Data analysis

We reported the qualitative and quantitative variables as number and percentage, mean and standard deviation, respectively. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between the tendency to get the COVID-19 vaccine and other variables. Firstly, in the univariate model, the relationship between the tendency to get the COVID-19 vaccine with each of the independent variables of the model was investigated.

We entered all variables with a p-value ≤ 0.25 into multiple logistic regression analysis to control the effect of potential confounders. This method ensures that no covariate has been ignored due to an insignificant p-value in the univariate analysis. Finally, a stepwise logistic regression model was run to identify the most parsimonious model that included all covariates that could predict the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. We used the backward method using the likelihood ratio approach, where the probability of entry was set at 0.40 and the exit at 0.10, so no significant covariates were omitted. All tests were two-tailed, and the significance level was 5%.

Ethical considerations

The objectives of the study were explained to all participants and their consent to participate was obtained. All questionnaires were distributed anonymously and participants were assured that all their information would remain confidential. The Ethics Committee of Asadabad University of Medical Sciences (No. IR.ASAUMS.REC.1401.007) has approved this study. All procedures were performed in this study following the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Consent was obtained from all participants.


The samples included 326 females and 324 males with a mean age of 34.6 (DS = 15.1), ranging in age from 10 to 91 years. Most of the participants (51.4%) were married, had university education (43.7%), were non-smokers (76.6%), and had no underlying diseases (76%). More than half of the participants had a history of COVID-19 infection (51.2%), and 69.8% of the participants stated that one of their family members had a history of COVID-19 infection. Also, 15.1% of the participants had lost a loved one due to COVID-19. More than a third (38.3%) also reported that a family member had been hospitalized due to a COVID-19 infection. On the other hand, 49.5% and 30.7% of the participants believed that the COVID-19 pandemic badly impacted their quality of life and income. More than a quarter of the participants did not trust health professionals, and about 40% did not trust the available vaccines. More than half of the participants (57.7%) would have liked to be vaccinated if there was a trusted vaccine. The mean score of COVID-19 fear among participants was 20.34 ± 6.98. Further details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 The demographic profile of the study participants (N = 650)

According to the results reported in Table 2, in the univariate model, all the variables except a history of COVID-19 infection (p-value = 0.888), the existence of a family member as a health specialist (p-value = 0.388), family history of hospitalization due to COVID-19 (p-value = 0.787), and effect of COVID-19 on your income (p-value = 0.733) were entered into multiple logistic regression model for analysis. Accordingly, after adjusting for all other covariates included in the analysis, people who lost a family member to COVID-19 were 56% less likely to accept vaccination than others who did not lose a family member due to COVID-19. Also, the odds of vaccination acceptance in people who have trust in healthcare workers and trust in the vaccine were 2.07 times that for those who have no trust (95% CI 1.13–3.79, p = 0.019) and 3.94 (95% CI 2.15–7.23, p < 0.001), respectively. The odds of vaccine acceptance in people who were encouraged by their families to get the vaccine were 7.6 times higher than in others (95% CI 4.12–14.01, p < 0.0001). Also, for a unit increase in fear of COVID-19 score, there was an increase in the odds of vaccine acceptance by 6% (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.10, p = 0.002) (Table 2). Finally, the multiple logistic regression model was significant according to the omnibus test (χ2 = 360.75, dof = 16, p < 0.001), and according to Hosmer–Lemeshow test the model fits the data well (χ2 = 7.23, dof = 8, p = 0.512) with a ROC value of 0.891 (95% CI 0.863–0.918) indicating excellent discrimination of the study participants.

Table 2 Univariable and multivariable logistic regression modeling for the association between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and several covariates (N = 650)

The results of the stepwise logistic regression method using backward elimination with a likelihood ratio approach are presented in Table 3. Results showed that people with a history of COVID-19 infection have lower odds of vaccine acceptability (AOR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.39–0.93, p = 0.025) and those with a family history of COVID-19 infection have higher odds of vaccine acceptability (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.06–3.27, p = 0.032). Additionally, people with families who died due to COVID-19 have lower odds of vaccine acceptability (AOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.23–0.84, p = 0.013), while those who trust healthcare workers have higher odds of vaccine acceptability (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.1–3.75, p = 0.024). Furthermore, people who have trust in the available vaccine and have advice from a family member to get the vaccine to have higher odds of vaccine acceptability with (AOR = 3.55, 95% CI 1.93–6.52, p < 0.001) and (AOR = 9.56, 95% CI 5.20–17.57, p < 0.001), respectively. Finally, for a one-unit increase in fear of COVID-19, there was 6% increase in the odds of vaccine acceptability (AOR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.09, p = 0.001).

Table 3 Results from the stepwise logistic regression modeling by backward elimination method with likelihood ratio method using all covariates (N = 650)


This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in the general population of Asadabad. Results showed that the death of a family member due to COVID-19, trust in healthcare workers, trust in existing vaccines, advice to family members to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and fear of COVID-19 were significantly associated with vaccine acceptance.

Acceptance of vaccination is a behavioral consequence of a complex decision-making process that various factors can potentially influence. In the present study, about 42.3% of participants were reluctant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. All attitudes towards vaccination can be seen, from active demand to complete refusal. Vaccine hesitators are generally a heterogeneous group in the middle of the continuum who may refuse some vaccines and accept others [20].

These people are more skeptical about newer vaccines [21, 22]. The low acceptance of vaccines seems to be that people are skeptical of new vaccines as a new technology because no previous past experience or success with such an approach has been reported. Another reason could be the high speed of production and registration of vaccines (in less than a year), which can reduce the acceptance of these vaccines [23].

People who trusted healthcare workers were twice as likely to be vaccinated. A study in Saudi Arabia showed that 64.7% of people were willing to be vaccinated, and people who trusted the health system were three times more likely to be vaccinated [24]. In the study by Tran et al. (2021), the odds of receiving the vaccine in people who trusted the medical staff were 2.7 times higher than in others [25]. People who were afraid of COVID-19 were also more likely to be vaccinated. In the study of Ahmad et al. in Pakistan, 62% of the participants were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. There was a significant relationship between acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and fear of COVID-19 [26]. People who trusted the vaccine were nearly four times more likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This finding makes sense because trust in the vaccine leads to vaccine acceptance. Also, the chance of getting the vaccine in people who encouraged their families to get the vaccine was 7.6 times higher than in others. A person who trusts the available vaccines will encourage his family to get the vaccine, and he will get the vaccine according to his family members. Results indicated that people with a history of COVID-19 infection have lower odds of vaccine acceptability as they may think that they already have immunity due to their infection. Those with a family history of COVID-19 infection have higher odds of vaccine acceptability because they might have seen the suffering of their family member due to COVID-19 infection. One of the strange findings of this study was the low odds of vaccine acceptance in people who had lost a family member to COVID-19. The reason for this finding may be that the guilt is lost due to the loss of a loved one, and with this immature mechanism, people try to reduce their guilt through self-punishment. Also, due to the severity of the discomfort, the person may not have the motivation to continue living and would like to experience this disease and its consequences.

A new vaccine should be accepted by at least 70% of the population to create herd immunity, which sometimes reaches 85% depending on the type of country and the infection rate [27, 28]. Large-scale vaccine refusal can be a threat to herd immunity. On the other hand, large-scale acceptance of local vaccine refusal can adversely affect community safety because non-vaccinators can inappropriately increase the vaccination coverage required to achieve herd safety [18].

Strength and limitations

One of the strengths of this study is the comprehensiveness and accuracy in completing the questionnaires. Also, the trained samplers, in addition to delivering the questionnaires to the people, guided them carefully and answered their possible questions. One of the limitations of this study was the periods of intermittent access to the vaccine. Sometimes the vaccine was scarce, and sometimes it was abundant. Also, some participants stated that the vaccine they were injected with was fake and had to go to health centers for re-vaccination. Another limitation was the society's culture of mistrust, as some participants witnessed the death of their loved ones. At the same time, they had already been vaccinated, thus attributing this situation to the vaccines being undesirable. According to the experience of different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, people were no longer as afraid of this disease as before; in other words, they had lost their fear with time. Therefore, the time of conducting the study can affect our results, which was beyond the control of the researchers.


This study showed that less than half of the participants were willing to be vaccinated, and this reluctance is influenced by society's experiences, culture, and context. Therefore, the health officials of each society must take measures to remove the obstacles to vaccine injection based on these characteristics. Also, it seems necessary to provide public education to encourage people to get vaccinated and build confidence in people about the available vaccines.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Coronavirus disease 2019


Vaccine-preventable diseases


  1. Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Abdi K, Ebadi A, Moradveisi B, Hosseini SE, Zahednezhad H. Development and validation of the Domestic Violence during Quarantine Scale (DVQS). J Public Health. 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chaudhary FA, Ahmad B, Khalid MD, Fazal A, Javaid MM, Butt DQ. Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among the Pakistani population. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2021;17(10):3365–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Saladino V, Algeri D, Auriemma V. The psychological and social impact of Covid-19: new perspectives of well-being. Front Psychol. 2020;11:2550.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Forni G, Mantovani A. COVID-19 vaccines: where we stand and challenges ahead. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28(2):626–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL. “Herd immunity”: a rough guide. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(7):911–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Skjefte M, Ngirbabul M, Akeju O, Escudero D, Hernandez-Diaz S, Wyszynski DF, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women and mothers of young children: results of a survey in 16 countries. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(2):197–211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, Flaxman AL, Folegatti PM, Owens DR, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. The Lancet. 2020;396(10267):1979–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Walsh EE, Frenck RW Jr, Falsey AR, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(25):2439–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. COVID Live Update: 173,549,916 Cases and 3,732,580 Deaths from the Coronavirus-Worldometer. Available online: . Accessed 5 June 2021.

  10. Dula J, Mulhanga A, Nhanombe A, Cumbi L, Júnior A, Gwatsvaira J, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptability and its determinants in Mozambique: an online survey. Vaccines. 2021;9(8):828.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DM, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine. 2014;32(19):2150–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hussain SF, Boyle P, Patel P, Sullivan R. Eradicating polio in Pakistan: an analysis of the challenges and solutions to this security and health issue. Globalization health. 2016;12(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moniz MH, Beigi RH. Maternal immunization: Clinical experiences, challenges, and opportunities in vaccine acceptance. Human vaccines immunotherapeutics. 2014;10(9):2562–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Larson HJ, Wilson R, Hanley S, Parys A, Paterson P. Tracking the global spread of vaccine sentiments: the global response to Japan’s suspension of its HPV vaccine recommendation. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2014;10(9):2543–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Michael CA, Ogbuanu IU, Storms AD, NSTOP OPV Refusal Study Team, et al. An assessment of the reasons for oral poliovirus vaccine refusals in northern Nigeria. J Infect Dis. 2014;210(s1):S125–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Murakami H, Kobayashi M, Hachiya M, Khan ZS, Hassan SQ, Sakurada S. Refusal of oral polio vaccine in northwestern Pakistan: a qualitative and quantitative study. Vaccine. 2014;32(12):1382–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(3):337–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations. Share of people vaccinated against COVID-19, Aug 13, 2022.

  19. Ahorsu DK, Lin C-Y, Imani V, Saffari M, Griffiths MD, Pakpour AH. The fear of COVID-19 scale: development and initial validation. Int J Mental Health Addict. 2020;20:1537–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger JA. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Human Vaccines Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Freed GL, Clark SJ, Butchart AT, Singer DC, Davis MM. Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):654–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gust DA, Darling N, Kennedy A, Schwartz B. Parents with doubts about vaccines: which vaccines and reasons why. Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):718–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Elimat T, AbuAlSamen MM, Almomani BA, Al-Sawalha NA, Alali FQ. Acceptance and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines: a cross-sectional study from Jordan. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4): e0250555.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Mohaithef M, Padhi BK. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Saudi Arabia: a web-based national survey. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tran VD, Pak TV, Gribkova EI, Galkina GA, Loskutova EE, Dorofeeva VV, et al. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in a high infection-rate country: a cross-sectional study in Russia. Pharm Pract. 2021;19(1):2276.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ahmed TF, Ahmed A, Ahmed S, Ahmed HU. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Pakistan: an echo of previous immunizations or prospect of change? Expert Rev Vaccines. 2021;20(9):1185–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kwok KO, Lai F, Wei WI, Wong SYS, Tang JW. Herd immunity–estimating the level required to halt the COVID-19 epidemics in affected countries. J Infect. 2020;80(6):e32–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7):1470.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The researchers would like to express their gratitude to the Deputy of Research of the Asadabad School of Medical Sciences for acceptance, and approval of this research project.



Author information

Authors and Affiliations



RGG and MA: data collection and manuscript preparation; RGG and ANA: manuscript preparation and study conceptualization; RGG and VB: study design; ANA and SS: final revision and grammar editing; PD: statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Ghanei Gheshlagh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The participants were previously informed about the characteristics of the study. Informed consent form was obtained from all participants. We also received informed consent from parents and/or their legal guardians for the children participating in the study. They were all asked to complete a questionnaire and to provide signed consent to confirm the participation in the study. The authors confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Ethics Committee of Asadabad University of Medical Sciences (No. IR.ASAUMS.REC.1401.007) has approved this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albatineh, A.N., Dalvand, P., Aslani, M. et al. Prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among the general population in Asadabad, Iran: a cross-sectional study. Trop Med Health 50, 59 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: