Vaccination
COVID vaccine acceptance in Libya
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine rose with assumed efficacy—about 80% if efficacy was ≥90%, but only about 41% if 50%.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Survey of public and health-care groups in Libya on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance by efficacy scenario
- N
- N=15087 · Final analysed respondents; mean age 30.6 years
- Population
- Libyan general public, students, and clinicians
- Outcome
- Willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccination at ≥90%, ≥70%, and 50% efficacy
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Among 15,087 respondents, acceptance was 79.6% for ≥90% efficacy, 60.6% for ≥70%, and 41.2% for 50%. Most respondents were general public; about one-quarter were students or clinicians.
Methodology
A cross-sectional survey of the public and health-care groups in Libya assessed knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination under different efficacy scenarios.
Limitations
Convenience/online sampling and hypothetical efficacy scenarios limit inference about later real uptake.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine vaccination with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Among 15,087 respondents, acceptance was 79.6% for ≥90% efficacy, 60.6% for ≥70%, and 41.2% for 50%. Most respondents were general public; about one-quarter were students or clinicians.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A Libyan survey of 15,087 respondents found COVID-19 vaccine acceptance of 79.6% if efficacy were ≥90%, 60.6% if ≥70%, and 41.2% if 50%. Most respondents were general public; about one-quarter were students or clinicians. Convenience/online sampling and hypothetical efficacy scenarios limit inference about later real uptake.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Hypothetical acceptance, reported coverage, administrative utilisation and CRT endline surveys are four different measurement jobs. Libya's 79.6% at ≥90% efficacy is a stated intention under a scenario. Seasonal flu coverage of ~21% and pandemic coverage of 11.1% are recalled past behaviour. Telemedicine's jump from 1.4% to 28.1% is billing data. SASA!'s ~50% IPV contrast is a randomised community comparison that used surveys. Averaging those percentages as 'survey findings on uptake' erases the disagreements.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Hypothetical acceptance, reported coverage, administrative utilisation and CRT endline surveys are four different measurement jobs. Libya's 79.6% at ≥90% efficacy is a stated intention under a scenario. Seasonal flu coverage of ~21% and pandemic coverage of 11.1% are recalled past behaviour. Telemedicine's jump from 1.4% to 28.1% is billing data. SASA!'s ~50% IPV contrast is a randomised community comparison that used surveys. Averaging those percentages as 'survey findings on uptake' erases the disagreements.
- Supports · Seasonal vs pandemic flu vaccine coverage
- Supports · How did rural telemedicine change in COVID?
- Supports · SASA! cut partner violence in Kampala
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.