BMC medical ethics · 2026
The ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations in Uganda: a qualitative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nameri Sharon, Nakwagala Fred, Barugahare John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 spread globally and, as of June 2023, resulted in more than 6.9 million deaths worldwide. Some studies suggested that vaccination was the most effective strategy for mitigating COVID-19. However, due to vaccine hesitancy, many people ended up shunning vaccinations. To address gaps in vaccination policy, recent legislative changes in Uganda mandated coronavirus vaccinations, highlighting the need to examine the implications of such amendments. There has not been a scientific study to explore the views of healthcare workers, bioethicists, and the general public on the ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations in Uganda.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that employed in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study was conducted in Mulago National Referral Hospital, Makerere University, College of Health Sciences, Wandegeya, and Mulago areas. Fifteen participants were purposively selected based on their expertise for in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions. Each focus group discussion had six participants. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. The coding was both deductive and inductive. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.
RESULTS: The participants shared their perspective on the ethicality surrounding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. The total sample size was 39. Opinions were divided: 21 participants supported the mandates, 5 expressed reservations, and 13 opposed them. Proponents argued vaccination mandates reduced infection rates, with benefits outweighing risks. Those with reservations acknowledged the principle but cited practical concerns, controversies, and implementation gaps. Opponents saw mandates as infringing on personal autonomy.
CONCLUSION: This inquiry into the ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations raised mixed views among the stakeholders, and implementors of vaccination programs should have put this in mind.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not Applicable.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that employed in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study was conducted in Mulago National Referral Hospital, Makerere University, College of Health Sciences, Wandegeya, and Mulago areas. Fifteen participants were purposively selected based on their expertise for in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions. Each focus group discussion had six participants. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. The coding was both deductive and inductive. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.
RESULTS: The participants shared their perspective on the ethicality surrounding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. The total sample size was 39. Opinions were divided: 21 participants supported the mandates, 5 expressed reservations, and 13 opposed them. Proponents argued vaccination mandates reduced infection rates, with benefits outweighing risks. Those with reservations acknowledged the principle but cited practical concerns, controversies, and implementation gaps. Opponents saw mandates as infringing on personal autonomy.
CONCLUSION: This inquiry into the ethicality of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations raised mixed views among the stakeholders, and implementors of vaccination programs should have put this in mind.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not Applicable.