Skip to main content
Download PDF

Knowledge and trust of mothers regarding childhood vaccination in Rwanda

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1067 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Knowledge and trust are some of the contributing factors to vaccine acceptance(VA) and Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is one of the top threats to global health. A significant drop in childhood vaccination has been observed in recent years. One important reason that influences mothers' choice to either postpone or avoid children's vaccinations is knowledge and trust in childhood vaccines. This study aimed to assess mothers' knowledge and trust on vaccination of their children, and to examine the association between vaccination knowledge and selected socio-demographic factors.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted from January 2022 to March 2022 to assess the knowledge and trust of mothers regarding childhood vaccination. Data was collected with self-administered questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess factors associated with childhood vaccine knowledge and trust.

Results

Of the 2,126 Rwandan parents who participated in the study, the proportions with good knowledge of – and good trust in childhood vaccination were 95.5% and 91.4%, respectively. The popular sources of information about childhood vaccination were health care professionals (91.8%) and mass media (28.9%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that good knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination were associated with the relationship with child(ren), education, occupation, and monthly income. The Multinomial logistic regression also revealed that the determinants of good knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination were; caregiver (p = 4.0 × 10–4, adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR); 1.7, 95%C.I; 1.3 – 2.3), no formal educational status (p = 3.3 × 10–2, aOR; 1.7, 95%C.I; 1.0 – 3.0), the unemployed occupational status (p = 2.4 × 10–2, aOR; 1.2, 95%C.I; 1.0 – 1.4), and persons on more than $401 per month (p = 2.0 × 10–4, aOR; 3.5, 95%C.I; 1.8 – 6.8).

Conclusion

The majority of parents in Rwanda had both good knowledge of—and good trust regarding childhood vaccination. Public health strategies to promote vaccination, education programmes as well as improved communication tools between health care professionals/traditional leaders/religious leaders and parents need to be considered to achieve favourable vaccination attitudes and practices for all parents in Rwanda.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Knowledge and trust regarding childhood vaccination influence vaccine uptake in combination with other factors such as vaccine hesitancy (VH). Public health experts broadly agree that vaccinations are essential because they have significantly decreased childhood illness and mortality, particularly by eradicating smallpox worldwide [1, 2]. Yearly, it is believed that immunisation rescue between two and three million people worldwide [1, 3, 4]. Vaccination has significant psychological and developmental implications in contrast to its life-saving and healthcare roles [5,6,7]. The concept of vaccination is not limited to one person but concerns the entire; childhood vaccination does not only protect children, rather it protects the community by preventing the transmission of vaccine -preventable diseases (VPD) in herd immunity [1, 8]. According to research, when therapy expenses are considered across each penny spent on vaccinations in Africa between 2010 and 2020 will provide a 16-fold yield, considering treatment costs and productivity losses [9]. Religious and traditional disparities have also contributed to increasing, mistrust, and misinformation [10,11,12,13], while healthcare personnel especially paediatricians are a reliable source of information on vaccination for parents and their children [14, 15]. However, notwithstanding well-established facts of vaccination's efficacy, public mistrust as well as the lack of confidence in vaccines has been growing for a long time [16,17,18], and needs to be addressed. The World Health Organisation (WHO) identified VH as one of the most serious health implications to humankind in 2019 and defined it as the referral, deferral, or denial of vaccines regardless of their accessibility [19,20,21].

Additionally cited as a concern to pandemic preparedness is vaccine VH [22, 23]. VH is the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services [17, 20, 24]; consequently leading to poor vaccine coverage [25]. Many researchers have connected VH to differing perspectives, insufficient knowledge and trust about vaccinations, trust of the vaccines, trust of physicians and health provider’s advice [1], conveniences, cost of vaccines [26], and perceptions of the threats or advantages of vaccination [27,28,29,30,31]. Although VH is regarded as a worldwide problem, the assessment methods currently in use are inadequate to accurately measure and comprehend the scope to which it has interfered with vaccination programmes in various configurations. In 2020, some studies reported that vaccine trust varies among and within states, and that low confidence negatively impacts low- and middle-income countries with already fragile healthcare systems [32, 33].

Vaccine acceptance (VA) varies across countries, generations, and the personality of individuals [34, 35]. Various factors affect VA; good knowledge of the vaccination process, educational status, employment status, the safeness and effectiveness of vaccines [14, 15, 34]. Factors associated with VA or VH could be individualistic and include risk perceptions, as well as (dis)trust [35].

In East Africa, complete basic childhood vaccine coverage remains a major public health concern with significant differences across countries. It was revealed that complete basic childhood vaccination was significantly associated with parental education and media exposure [36], which is synonymous to knowledge of childhood vaccination. Research findings also indicate that knowledge about, and attitude towards, childhood vaccination among mothers in Saudi Arabia and Cyprus are excellent [6, 36, 37].

Furthermore, additional research is necessary to identify the environmental and specific variables that raise the risk of VH and to learn more about efficient ways to boost vaccine uptake [38,39,40].

Throughout the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda, the country's immunisation rate was significantly under 30%, and a high prevalence of infections that could have been prevented by vaccination was observed; for instance, 28,000 measles cases were reported in 1995 [38, 39]. Regarding that, the Rwandan government, with the support of the World Health Organisation [41] made significant investments in public health, and a strong Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) helped to significantly lower childhood hesitancy as well as levels of childhood mortality and morbidity [42,43,44], with about 28.2% neonate mortality in 2018 and 29.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2023 [45, 46]. The acceptance of vaccines is an important predictor of vaccine uptake. This has public health implications as those who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection from vaccine preventable diseases [47]. The responsibility of the EPI is to offer routine vaccination, supplemental immunisation actions, and monitoring systems for vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) benchmarks. In order to promote immunisation and reduce dropout rates, the EPI works with community health professionals and other well-functioning networks across many sectors in the country [3, 38]. To the researchers' knowledge, little or no studies have been carried out to evaluate the variation in tendencies for immunisation and vaccine effectiveness in Rwanda's health districts. Assessing childhood vaccination rates and knowledge regarding routine immunisation against diseases that can be prevented by vaccines is therefore necessary. To better understand the concept of vaccine uptake, we need to explore factors such a knowledge and trust and how they influence mother perception toward routine vaccines. Low levels of knowledge and trust can harm routine immunization practices in the past as referenced in the discussion Chapter. To this end, the current study aims to quantitatively assess parental knowledge and trust regarding recommended childhood vaccination.

Materials and methods

Study framework

Rwanda is a landlocked African country in the Great Lakes region, between 1°04′ and 2°51′ south latitude, and between 28°45′ and 31°15′ East longitude [48]; geographically dominated by mountains in the west and savannah to the east, with numerous lakes throughout the country. The population of Rwanda is 13.46 million (2021) million people, with a growth rate of 2.58% from 2019 to 2020 [49].

Study design

A national cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2022 to March 2022 among parents selected in five Districts of Rwanda. Our study framework was composed of districts of which two of the five Districts (i.e Nyagatare and Ngoma), are located in the Eastern Province, while Nyamagabe, Nyarugenge, and Ngororero are located in the Southern, Central and Western Provinces respectively.

Sampling

We used a multistage Cluster (Province) sampling method where a list of all Cells/"Akagalis" and villages therein was drawn. A total of 50 villages were selected, including at least two villages from each Cell. The sampling procedure for the required number of Parents (mothers or caregivers) was done in three stages.

Firstly, four of the five Provinces in Rwanda; the Eastern, Southern, Central, and Western Provinces were selected by simple random sampling using a random sample generator (RSG).

Secondly, the number of Districts of the selected Provinces were listed and one each was selected using the RSG. Within each District, two Sectors were selected and within each Sector, two Cells/"Akagalis" were selected. At least two villages were then selected from each Akagali by RSG (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic illustration of the study design and settings; multistage sampling

Full size image

Thirdly, within each selected village, parents were sampled consecutively until the desired sample size was attained. The  conveniet sampling technique was applied wherein participants were approached and informed of the study objectives at their work places and at their doorsteps. We applied conveniet sampling techenique because this study was conducted during the period of COVID-19 where we though reaching our desired sample size would not be reached. Data was then collected through personal interviews with the parents. Despite the non-probabilistic sampling approach used for sampling mothers, we managed to recruit participants from all major areas of the randomly selected villages and from different age and socio-economic strata, thus ensuring a representative sample of the adult female Rwandan population.

Prior to the sampling, research assistants were trained on the objectives of the study, how to administer the data collection tool, how to probe study participants, and how to record responses. Five data quality control officers; one for each district, were also trained on the various types of data collected by the questionnaire, and the use of Microsoft excel.

Study population and target sample size

The study population constituted parents of children (mothers or caregivers) aged 12 to 23 months, who were conveniently sampled from 50 villages in Rwanda. This convenient sampling approach of mothers was inevitable because all mothers could neither be at home nor at market nor office at the same time. Being a mother or caregiver, ≥ 18 years of age, and granting consent to participate in the study constituted the inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria from the study were those who had one child(ren) older than five years, not living in the selected Districts and refused to grant consent.

In the absence of similar studies in Rwanda, a minimum sample size of 154 per Cluster/District, based on the WHO immunisation coverage cluster survey [50], was calculated with the CDC Epi Info 7.2.5.0 (Centre for Disease Control, Georgia, USA) StatCalc with the following characteristics: an estimated District population size of 362,806 in 2022 [49], an estimated proportion of mothers with knowledge of – trust in childhood vaccination of 50.0%, a design effect of 2.0, an accepted error margin of 5% [51], and five Clusters/Districts. Assuming and Considering respondents possible non-response and non-responding respondents, the sample size was adjusted by 10% (16 respondents) to 170. We also assumed that some participants would not consent to our study and hence would not be included.

Definition of concepts and study variables

Independent/demographic variables: included age, sex, marital status, relationship with the child(ren), religion, level of education, occupation, number of children in the immunisation bracket, and monthly income.

Dependent variables: included sources of information about childhood vaccination (Question 9; S1 Appendix), parental knowledge of childhood vaccination, trust in childhood vaccination, and both parental knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination.

Parental trust in childhood vaccination was assessed based on two questions (Questions 27 & 28; S1 Appendix): Do you trust the information you receive about the vaccination of your children? How much do you trust the government and public health agencies in the promotion of childhood vaccines? The potential responses 'yes,' 'no,' and 'I do not know' were scored as one for 'yes', and zero for 'no/I don't know'. Respondents were said to have trust in childhood vaccination if they answered "yes" to both questions; those who answered "no" to one or both questions were considered to have no trust in childhood vaccination, while respondents who answered "I do not know" to one or both questions were considered that they are not sure about their trust in childhood vaccination.

Parental knowledge of childhood vaccination was assessed based on responses to four questions; (Questions 30 – 33, 36; S1 Appendix). The potential responses to each of these questions were sorted on a Likert scale [52] and included strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree. These potential responses were then scored as one, two, three, four, and five, respectively, for questions 30 – 33.

Parental knowledge of – and Trust in childhood vaccination was assessed based on six questions; (Questions 27 & 28; and 30 – 33; S1 Appendix). Modified Bloom's cut-off points were used to rate knowledge of -, trust in -, as well as knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination as very poor (< 20%), poor (≥ 20 but < 40%), moderate (≥ 40 but < 60%), good (≥ 60 but < 80%), or very good (≥ 80%) and later as poor (< 60%) or good (≥ 60%) [53, 54].

Data collection and analysis

Data was collected with the use of well-structured questionnaires in a face-to-face interview. The questionnaire which consisted of 62 questions, aimed to collect information on respondent's identification, demographic characteristics, information about child(ren) immunisation status, and others. The survey instrument took approximately 15–30 min to administer. Prior to the study, the validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by pre-testing in 10 participants who were excluded from the study. Based on the pre-test study, the format and wording of some questions were corrected and refined. Data from the 10 participants was used to assess internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha (α) [55,56,57]. The results showed adequate internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach's α = 0.72) [56, 57] for the eight sections with 62 questions. At the end of each day or after every two days, the data quality control officers checked the entry of all data into the Microsoft Office Excel sheet to ensure that the right data is being collected. At the end of the data collection exercise, the field supervisor checked all the data from the various districts to ensure that the data collected was in order.

Age groups, sex, marital status, relationship with the child(ren), religion, education, and occupation were summarised as counts and percentages. Age, number of children in immunisation bracket, knowledge of childhood vaccination, and trust in childhood vaccination scores were expressed as ranges and means. Data was entered into a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet, double-checked for consistency, exported to, and analysed with CDC Epi Info 7.2.5.0 (Centre for Disease Control, Georgia, USA). Binomial logistic regression analysis as well as multinomial logistic regression (MNLR) were used to determine associations between knowledge of – trust in childhood vaccination, as well as knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination with demographic characteristics. Associations between respondent's characteristics (covariates) and Districts were evaluated using the Pearson Chi square (χ2) test. Multicollinearity was tested for, and the following models were used:

Knowledge of childhood vaccination = β0 + β1Age + β2Number of children in the immunisation bracket + β3Sex + β4Relationship with Child(ren) + β5Religion + β6Marrital Status + β7Education + β8Occupation + ε,

Trust in childhood vaccination = β0 + β1Age + β2Number of children in the immunisation bracket + β3Sex + β4Relationship with Child(ren) + β5Religion + β6Marrital Status + β7Education + β8Occupation + β9Monthly Income + β10Knowledge of Childhood Vaccination + ε, and.

Knowledge of – and Trust in childhood vaccination = β0 + β1Age + β2Number of children in the immunisation bracket + β3Sex + β4Relationship with Child(ren) + β5Religion + β6Marrital Status + β7Education + β8Occupation + β9Monthly Income + ε.

Where β0 is a constant, β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, β6, β7, β8, β9, and β10 are coefficients and ε is the regression error. For multicollinearity, variance inflation factor between 1 and 5 indicated moderate correlation between a given predictor variable and other predictor variables in the model. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [58] and cleared by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Science (No. 402/CMHS IRB/2020) and the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg ethical committee (S-829/2021). All participants signed the informed consent prior to being interviewed. All participants were informed and assured that the data collected would be used only for research purposes and their individual responses would not be available to the public.

Results

Characteristics of study population

A total of 2,126 respondents were included in this analysis: 456 (21.4%) from Ngoma, 390 (18.3%) from Ngororero, 494 (23.2%) from Nyagatare, 313 (14.7%) from Nyamagabe, and 473 (22.2%) from Nyarugenge (Supplementary File 1).

About half (49.4%, 95%C.I; 47.3 – 51.5) of the respondents were 30 years or less [mean age of 31.03 years (SD 7.5, range 18 – 58)], with less than a tenth (7.3%, 95%C.I; 6.3 – 8.5) who are more than 41 years old, a gross majority; about four-fifth (82.2%, 95%C.I; 80.5 – 83.8) were females, about half (51.4%, 95%C.I; 49.3 – 53.5) had completed the primary level of education, about three-quarters (78.5%, 95%C.I; 76.7 – 80.2) earned less than 100 United States Dollar (USD) per month, close to two-thirds (63.5%, 95%C.I; 61.5 – 65.6) were artisanal workers, and (78.7%, 95%C.I; 76.9 – 80.4) were married (Table 1). Among the 2,126 mothers of the study, 452 (21.3%, 95%C.I; 19.6—23.1) were not married, while 79 (3.7%, 95%C.I; 3.0—4.6) harboured two or more children [mean number of children in the immunisation bracket of 1.04 child (SD 0.24, range 01 – 04)].

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants (n = 2,126)
Full size table

All characteristics of the study participants were significantly associated with districts (Supplementary File 1).

Sources of vaccine information

Population sources of vaccine information were enumerated as shown in Fig. 2. Most respondents 1,952 (91.8%), had vaccine information from Health Care Workers (Medical Doctors and Nurses), while only a few admitted getting information from Religious (10.8%) and Traditional (9.3%) Leaders. The mass (radio, television, newspapers) and social media (WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter), as well as relatives, were also sources of vaccine information to the community. Thus, trusted messengers of vaccine information were Healthcare Workers.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sources of child vaccination information

Full size image

Knowledge and trust of mothers/caregivers regarding childhood vaccination

Mothers and caregivers expressed different shades of knowledge regarding childhood vaccinations. On a five-point Likert scale, 1,136 (53.4%, 95%C.I; 51.3 – 55.6) of the respondents disagreed on the importance of vaccines to their health; 986 (46.4%, 95%C.I; 44.3 – 48.5) strongly agreed on the effectiveness of vaccines; 1,048 (49.3%, 95%C.I; 47.2 – 51.4) also strongly agreed that all vaccines are beneficial to the community; and 1,442 (67.8%, 95%C.I; 65.8 – 69.8) agreed that getting vaccinated is a good way of protecting oneself from vaccine preventable disease (Table 2).

Table 2 Knowledge regarding childhood vaccination
Full size table

Majority [1,255 (59%, 95% C.I; 56.9 – 61.1)] of the respondents agreed on the fact that getting one's self vaccinated, is important for the health of others in the community; thus contributing to herd immunity (Table 2).

An absolute majority [1,943 (91.4%, 95% C.I; 90.1 – 92.5)] of the respondents were found to have very good trust in childhood vaccinations, while 2,030 (95.5%, 95% C.I; 30.6 – 34.6) had good knowledge of childhood vaccinations (Fig. 3). The mean knowledge score was 73.18% (SD 7.36, range 40 – 100%), with a median score of 75%. Of the 1,943 mothers/caregivers with very good trust in childhood vaccination, 628 (29.5%, 95%C.I; 27.6 – 31.5) had both very good knowledge of – and very good trust in childhood vaccinations (Figs. 3 and 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Grading of knowledge, trust, and knowledge/trust

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Very Good Knowledge, Trust and both Knowledge & Trust

Full size image

Binomial logistic regression analysis revealed significant associations of sex, relationship to child(ren), educational status, occupation, and monthly income with good knowledge of childhood vaccinations (p < 0.05). From multinomial regression analysis, the odds for having good knowledge of childhood vaccination was higher amongst male respondents (p = 1.2 × 10–2, aOR; 2.4, 95%C.I; 1.2 – 4.8), respondents who were unmarried (p = 3.6 × 10–3, aOR; 1.6, 95%C.I; 1.2 – 2.2), and the unemployed (p = 1.0 × 10–4, aOR; 4.0, 95%C.I; 2.7 – 5.9), those with casual labour (p = 1.0 × 10–4, aOR; 3.4, 95%C.I; 1.8 – 6.2) as well as civil servants (p = 2.5 × 10–2, aOR; 2.7, 95%C.I; 1.1 – 6.5) when compared with their various counterparts (Table 3).

Table 3 Binomial and multinomial logistic regression analyses of knowledge of childhood vaccination with respondents' characteristics (n = 2,030)
Full size table

As presented in (Table 4), binomial analysis revealed significant associations of occupation of respondents and knowledge of childhood vaccinations with good trust in childhood vaccinations (p > 0.05). The mean trust score was 95.16% (SD 16.52, range 0 – 100%).

Table 4  Binomial and multinomial logistic regression analyses of trust in childhood vaccinations with respondents' characteristics (n = 1,943)
Full size table

Of the 2,126 respondents, only 628 (29.5%, 95%C.I; 27.6 – 31.5) had both very good knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccinations (Fig. 3). From MNLR analysis, the odds for trust in childhood vaccination was significantly higher amongst caregivers (p = 6.3 × 10–3, aOR; 1.5, 95%C.I; 1.1 – 2.2), respondents with no formal education (p = 2.3 × 10–2, aOR; 1.9, 95%C.I; 1.1 – 3.4) as well as those with secondary educational status (p = 4.5 × 10–1, aOR; 1.2, 95%C.I; 0.7 – 1.8), and those with a monthly income of more than $400 (p = 1.6 × 10–2, aOR; 2.3, 95%C.I; 1.2 – 4.5) as well as those with monthly income range of $201 – 300 (p = 1.3 × 10–1, aOR; 1.3, 95%C.I; 0.9 – 1.9) (Table 4).

Binomial analysis revealed no significant associations of demographic characteristics of respondents with both good knowledge of – and good trust in childhood vaccinations. From MNLR analysis, the odds for having both good knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination was significantly higher amongst caregivers (p = 4.0 × 10–4, aOR; 1.7, 95%C.I; 1.3 – 2.3), respondents with NFE status (p = 3.3 × 10–2, aOR; 1.7, 95%C.I; 1.0 – 3.0) as well as those with secondary educational status (p = 2.3 × 10–1, aOR; 1.3, 95%C.I; 0.8 – 2.0), persons with unemployed occupational (p = 2.0 × 10–2, aOR; 1.2, 95%C.I; 1.0 – 1.4), and average monthly income earners of ≥ $401 (p = 2.0 × 10–4, aOR; 3.5, 95%C.I; 1.8 – 6.8) as well as those between $201 – 300 vs $101 – 200 (p = 1.0 × 10–4, aOR; 2.1, 95%C.I; 1.4 – 2.9) vs (p = 2.3 × 10–2, aOR; 1.4, 95%C.I; 1.0 – 1.8) when compared with their counterparts (Table 5).

Table 5 Binomial and multinomial logistic regression analyses on knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination with respondents' characteristics (n = 1,864)
Full size table

Discussion

The Rwandan Ministry of Health identified elements that would enhance immunisation uptake and programmed requirements in collaboration with local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in order to meet sector development goals; goal 4 and reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds by 2030 [53].

Our study adds to the description of the behaviour of mothers and caregivers towards childhood vaccination in Rwanda, where there is a gap in literature. This study revealed that; 91.8% of respondents obtained information about vaccines from health care workers. Majority of the mothers and caregivers had knowledge of childhood vaccinations, trust in childhood vaccinations, and had knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination.

Sources of information

The adoption of vaccinations in Africa and around the world is impacted by misleading information about immunisations, lack of understanding and confidence in vaccination, and other factors.

Our study shows that the major source of information on vaccines and vaccination was provided by healthcare providers, followed by the mass media and social media. This was in line with previous studies in Greece, Cyprus and Switzerland, where parents rely on paediatricians for information concerning childhood vaccination [6, 60, 61], but differed from studies in the Netherlands, Philippines, Palestine, and Guinea where parents mostly explored the internet, as well as rely on traditional authorities for information about childhood vaccinations [15, 62,63,64]. In our study, 11.9% of respondents had information on vaccines and vaccinations from the social media; this was very low compared to the 22.07 – 49.5% reported elsewhere in Saudi Arabia and Palestine [15, 65]. Our finding was also different from that of a study conducted in rural communities to enhance vaccine confidence, wherein trusted messengers had lots of challenges communicating the importance of COVID-19 vaccine importance to the population [17]. In our study, there was 91.4% trust in childhood vaccination which was very high when compared with the 45.9% and 49.2% COVID-19 vaccine confidence reported amongst Filipinos and Malaysians respectively [66]. In other studies, parents considered factors like access to information, interpersonal communication, misinformation, and community norms for childhood vaccination [31, 67,68,69].

Knowledge of mothers/caregivers regarding childhood vaccination

The 95.5% proportion of respondents with good knowledge of childhood vaccination in this study was high compared with the 86% reported among Saudi Arabian mothers [65], and very high compared with the 27 – 37.2% reported by other authors among Indonesian, Egyptian and Ethiopian parents [53, 70,71,72], and similar to the 91.7 – 94.4% reported among mothers in Italy and Greece [73, 74]. In another study on mothers' knowledge towards children's vaccination in Lebanon, good knowledge depended on physician’s communication [1]. The average knowledge score of 73.18% of our study was lower than the 86% reported in Saudi Arabia [65], and very high when compared with the 7.36 -13.6% reported amongst Cypriots and Malaysian parents [6, 75]. In terms of median scores, we had 75% (15/20), which was higher than the 11 reported in Greece [61]. The differences in the different studies might be due to differences in study designs.

In this study, 92% of respondents agreed (46.4% strongly agreed and 45.6% agreed) that vaccines are effective in the prevention of VPD; this was less than the 81.2 – 95.9% reported in Malaysia and Southeast Asia [76, 77]. A majority, 97.8% of agreed (49.3% strongly agreed and 48.5% agreed) that vaccines are beneficial and safe to the community; this was higher than the 41.8% reported in Palestine [15].

Furthermore, our study, found a significant association between good knowledge of childhood vaccination and sex, education, and occupation. Mother’s education, has been widely reported as an important determinant of knowledge in childhood vaccination in Ethiopia, Greece, Malaysia, and Palestine [15, 18, 61, 71]. On the other hand, research studies in the rural communities of the United States of America, showed that the factors affecting vaccine acceptance and knowledge were mistrust and misinformation as well as constantly changing health guidelines [17]..

Trust of mothers/caregivers regarding childhood vaccination

In our study, 1,943 (91.4%) of the mothers/caregivers indicated that they had trust in childhood vaccination, which was higher than the 48.2—66% reported in other studies conducted in the Washington State and Saudi Arabia [78, 79], slightly higher than the 84% vaccine acceptance due to trust in six Southeast Asian countries [77] and lower than 91.6% reported amongst mothers in Greece [74]. Trust in childhood vaccination depended on the socio-demographic characteristics; sex, relationship with child(ren), educational status, occupation of parents/monthly income, as well as on the sources of vaccine information. This was different from the socio-demographic characteristics; sex, residence, educational status, occupational status, marital and family economic status as enumerated in a multi-national study in Southeast Asia [77]; vaccine convenience and doctor’s recommendations in Malaysia [76]. In other studies on the factors influencing parents' views on childhood vaccination, many complex factors; practices surrounding the illness condition, the people they interact with, politics, educational status, and access to vaccines [7, 74].

Knowledge and trust of mothers/caregivers regarding childhood vaccination

Of the 2,030 and 1,943 who had knowledge of childhood vaccination and trust in childhood vaccinations, 1,864 (87.7%) had both knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccinations. In similar studies elsewhere, good knowledge depended on parent to physician communication [1, 65].

Similar to our study, a studies in Spain and Lebanon revealed that knowledge of vaccination uptake was influenced by one's socioeconomic class, sex, and level of education [1, 80, 81]. However, a study in Lebanon also revealed that, a parent’s knowledge of childhood vaccination was influenced by monthly salary and the type of insurance [1].

Our study also revealed that 92% (45.6% agreed and 46.4% strongly agreed) of the respondents perceived that vaccines are effective. This was very high compared to the 78.8% reported for a global survey of 20 countries [26]. From our results, it was revealed that socio-demographic characteristics were associated with knowledge and trust in childhood vaccinations. This was contrary to the convenience, health provider’s advice, and cost of vaccine as reported in another study [26].

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

Field data were obtained by field staff who had a mastery of the terrain. The quality of the data collected was assured through pretesting of questionnaires in a pilot study. The objective was to minimise bias as well as errors. The minimisation of bias was done by randomisation in the selection of Provinces, Districts, Sectors, Cells, and Villages. Further, bias was minimised by the use of a large sample size.

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional study, representing the snapshot of the population within the study period. Thus, we cannot infer causal relationships between mothers' knowledge of – trust in childhood vaccination with their demographic characteristics. Data were collected by convenient sampling of parents through anonymous self-reporting via door-to-door, and thus there is a possibility of double selection bias, response bias, and recall bias. Such biases can also affect some of the responses and subsequently the results of the study. Another significant limitation was representativeness as a higher proportion of the sampled respondents were undereducated, having acquired less than the secondary level of education.

Conclusion

The majority of parents in Rwanda have good knowledge of – and trust in childhood vaccination. Knowledge and trust were good amongst mothers. This study indicates that there was an association between knowledge of childhood vaccination and relationship with the child(ren), education and occupation of the parent; it also indicated that there was no association between trust in childhood vaccination and parents' characteristics.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data that support the conclusion of this study are included in the article. This is a field study rather than a clinical study.No data registration is required

Abbreviations

95%C.I:

95% Confidence Interval

\(\overline{x}\) :

Mean

Aor:

Adjusted Odds Ratio

EPI:

Expanded Programme on Immunisation

MNLR:

Multinomial Logistic Regression

OR:

Odds Ratio

SD:

Standard deviation

VA:

Vaccine acceptance

VH:

Vaccine hesitancy

VPD(s):

Vaccine preventable disease(s)

WHO:

World Health Organisation

χ2;:

Chi square

References

  1. Matta P, El Mouallem R, Akel M, Hallit S, Fadous Khalife MC. Parents’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards children’s vaccination in Lebanon: role of the parent-physician communication. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Saffar H, Saffar MJ, Saffar H. Vaccination in developing countries: a review of probable factors for lower responses to vaccine. J Pediatr Rev. 2013;1(1):1–1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Delany I, Rappuoli R, De Gregorio E. Vaccines for the 21st century. EMBO Mol Med. 2014;6(6):708–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. WHO. Vaccines and immunization. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization. Cited 2023 Jul 22

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rodrigues CMC, Plotkin SA. Impact of vaccines; health, economic and social perspectives. Front Microbiol. 2020;11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01526. Cited 2023 Jul 16.

  6. Kyprianidou M, Tzira E, Galanis P, Giannakou K. Knowledge of mothers regarding children’s vaccinations in Cyprus: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper S, Schmidt BM, Sambala EZ, Swartz A, Colvin CJ, Leon N, Wiysonge CS. Factors that influence parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;10(10):CD013265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mihigo RM, Okeibunor JC, O’Malley H, Masresha B, Mkanda P, Zawaira F. Investing in life saving vaccines to guarantee life of future generations in Africa. Vaccine. 2016;34(48):5827–32. Available from: https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0264410X16304601. Cited 2022 Apr 5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan MU, Ahmad A, Salman S, Ayub M, Aqeel T, Haq NU, Saleem F, Khan MU. Muslim scholars’ knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers towards polio immunization in Pakistan. J Relig Health. 2017;56(2):635–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nasir SG, Aliyu G, Ya’u I, Gadanya M, Mohammad M, Zubair M, El-Kamary SS. From intense rejection to advocacy: how Muslim clerics were engaged in a polio eradication initiative in Northern Nigeria. PLoS Med. 2014;11(8):e1001687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bbaale E. Factors influencing childhood immunization in Uganda. J Health Popul Nutr. 2013;31(1):118–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruijs WLM, Hautvast JLA, Kerrar S, van der Velden K, Hulscher MEJL. The role of religious leaders in promoting acceptance of vaccination within a minority group: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2013;28(13):511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Picchio CA, Carrasco MG, Sagué-Vilavella M, Rius C. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about vaccination in primary healthcare workers involved in the administration of systematic childhood vaccines, Barcelona, 2016/17. Euro Surveill. 2019;24(6):1800117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-kafarna M, Matar SG, Almadhoon HW, Almaghary BK, Zaazouee MS, Elrashedy AA, Wafi DS, Jabari SD, Salloum OH, Ibrahim EA, Alagha HZ, Hasabo EA, AL-Ali TKH, Neiroukh H, Almakhtoob FJ, Marabeh SS, Badawi MY, Jabari AY, Al-Ali FH, Asafrah TS, Muhanna YS, IMedRA Collaboration Team. Public knowledge, attitude, and acceptance toward COVID-19 vaccines in Palestine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):529.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dobson GP. Wired to doubt: why people fear vaccines and climate change and mistrust science. Front Med. 2022;8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.809395. Cited Feb 23 2024.

  17. Reichelt M, Cullen JP, Mayer-Fried S, Russell HA, Bennett NM, Yousefi-Nooraie R. Addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in rural communities: a case study in engaging trusted messengers to pivot and plan. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1059067.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Marzo RR, Chakraborty R, Soh SY, Thew HZ, Chong C, Siau CS, Wahab KBA, Ariffin IAB, Chauhan S, Brackstone K, Padhi BK, Heidler P. Frontiers | Factors influencing parents’ hesitancy to vaccinate their children aged 5–11 years old against COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional study in Malaysia. 2023. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1091015/full. Cited 2024 Feb 22.

  19. WHO. Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019. Cited 2023 Jul 15

    Google Scholar 

  20. MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lavigne SE. Vaccine hesitancy: root causes and possible solutions. Can J Dent Hyg. 2022;55(2):79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Larson HJ, Hartigan-Go K, de Figueiredo A. Vaccine confidence plummets in the Philippines following dengue vaccine scare: why it matters to pandemic preparedness. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(3):625–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peters MDJ. Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;131:104241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. WHO. Reticencia a la vacunación: Un desafío creciente para los programas de inmunización. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/18-08-2015-vaccine-hesitancy-a-growing-challenge-for-immunization-programmes. Cited 2023 Aug 20

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dhalaria P, Arora H, Singh AK, Mathur M, S AK. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination coverage in India: an exploratory analysis. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(5):739.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marzo RR, Ahmad A, Islam MS, Essar MY, Heidler P, King I, Thiyagarajan A, Jermsittiparsert K, Songwathana K, Younus DA, El-Abasiri RA, Bicer BK, Pham NT, Respati T, Fitriyana S, Faller EM, Baldonado AM, Billah MA, Aung Y, Hassan SM, Asad MM, El-Fass KA, Bhattacharya S, Shrestha S, Hamza NAE, Friedmann P, Head M, Lin Y, Yi S. Perceived COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, acceptance, and drivers of vaccination decision-making among the general adult population: a global survey of 20 countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(1):e0010103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lane S, MacDonald NE, Marti M, Dumolard L. Vaccine hesitancy around the globe: analysis of three years of WHO/UNICEF joint reporting form data-2015-2017. Vaccine. 2018;36(26):3861–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Marti M, de Cola M, MacDonald NE, Dumolard L, Duclos P. Assessments of global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014-looking beyond safety concerns. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172310.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015;14(1):99–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yayah EN, Cho FN, Etagha BS, Njimona I, Elad PCK, Jokwi PK, Ikomey MG. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of/towards COVID-19 among Cameroonians in the Bamenda Health District: a cross-sectional study during the second wave of the pandemic. Texila Int J Public Health. 2022;15:2–5.

  31. Garett R, Young SD. Online misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11(12):2194–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. de Figueiredo A, Simas C, Karafillakis E, Paterson P, Larson HJ. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: a large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. Lancet. 2020;396(10255):898–908.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Badur S, Ota M, Öztürk S, Adegbola R, Dutta A. Vaccine confidence: the keys to restoring trust. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020;16(5):1007–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Alkattan A, Radwan N, Mahmoud N, Alkhalifah A, Alshamlan A, Alkamis A, Alfaifi A, Alanazi W, Alfaleh A, Haji A, Alabdulkareem K. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: knowledge and beliefs. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022;46(1):260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Habersaat KB, Jackson C. Understanding vaccine acceptance and demand-and ways to increase them. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020;63(1):32–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tesema GA, Tessema ZT, Tamirat KS, Teshale AB. Complete basic childhood vaccination and associated factors among children aged 12–23 months in East Africa: a multilevel analysis of recent demographic and health surveys. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1837.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Abuharba WA, Algarni AM. Knowledge and attitude of mothers towards childhood vaccination in Taif, Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health. 2022;2(2):101–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Filia A, Bella A, D’Ancona F, Fabiani M, Giambi C, Rizzo C, Ferrara L, Pascucci MG, Rota MC. Childhood vaccinations: knowledge, attitudes and practices of paediatricians and factors associated with their confidence in addressing parental concerns, Italy, 2016. Euro Surveill. 2019;24(6):1800275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sinuraya RK, Kusuma ASW, Pardoel ZE, Postma MJ, Suwantika AA. Parents’ knowledge, attitude, and practice on childhood vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022;14(16):105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robson J, Bao J, Wang A, McAlister H, Uwizihiwe JP, Sayinzoga F, Sibomana H, Koswin K, Wong J, Zlotkin S. Making sense of Rwanda’s remarkable vaccine coverage success. Int J Healthc. 2020;6(1):56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. WHO. Rwanda Immunization success story. WHO | Regional Office for Africa. 2024. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/news/rwanda-immunization-success-story. Cited 2024 Feb 28.

  42. Miyahara R, Jasseh M, Gomez P, Shimakawa Y, Greenwood B, Keita K, Ceesay S, D’Alessandro U, Roca A. Barriers to timely administration of birth dose vaccines in The Gambia, West Africa. Vaccine. 2016;34(29):3335–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mbonigaba E, Nderu D, Chen S, Denkinger C, Geldsetzer P, McMahon S, Bärnighausen T. Childhood vaccine uptake in Africa: threats, challenges, and opportunities. J Glob Health Reports. 2021;5:e2021080.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Machingaidze S, Wiysonge CS, Hussey GD. Strengthening the expanded programme on immunization in Africa: looking beyond 2015. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Gupta N, Hirschhorn LR, Rwabukwisi FC, Drobac P, Sayinzoga F, Mugeni C, Nkikabahizi F, Bucyana T, Magge H, Kagabo DM, Nahimana E, Rouleau D, VanderZanden A, Murray M, Amoroso C. Causes of death and predictors of childhood mortality in Rwanda: a matched case-control study using verbal social autopsy. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1378.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. UNICEF. Rwanda (RWA) - Demographics, health & infant mortality. UNICEF Data; 2023. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/country/rwa/. Cited 2023 Aug 20.

  47. Dyda A, King C, Dey A, Leask J, Dunn AG. A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Li L, Mind’je R. Description of Rwanda. In: Li L, Mind’je R, editors. Hydrogeological hazard susceptibility and community risk perception in Rwanda: a case study of floods and landslides. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2023. p. 23–30. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/978-981-99-1751-8_3. (Cited 2024 Feb 23).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Worldometer. Rwanda population 2023 (Live). 2023. Available from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/rwanda-population. Cited 2023 Jul 23.

  50. Lwanga S, Sapirie S, Steinglass R, Stroh G, Wylie A. The Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals thanks the donors whose unspecified financial support has made the production of this publication possible and also gratefully acknowledges the assistance given to the authors by: World Health Organization. 2005. p. 129.

  51. Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021;31(1):010502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Susan Jamieson. Likert scale | Social science surveys & applications | Britannica. 2022. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Likert-Scale. Cited 2023 Jun 27.

  53. Desalegn Z, Deyessa N, Teka B, Shiferaw W, Hailemariam D, Addissie A, Abagero A, Kaba M, Abebe W, Nega B, Ayele W, Haile T, Gebrehiwot Y, Amogne W, Kantelhardt EJ, Abebe T. COVID-19 and the public response: knowledge, attitude and practice of the public in mitigating the pandemic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0244780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Cho FN, Ngah YE, Tassang AN, Fru CN, Kuku Elad PC, Jokwi PK, Folefac VN, Esa I, Fru PN. Face mask ownership/utilisation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst patients recovering from COVID-19 in Cameroon: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280269.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bujang MA, Omar ED, Baharum NA. A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. Malays J Med Sci. 2018;25(6):85–99.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Al-Osail AM, Al-Sheikh MA, Al-Osail EM, Al-Ghamdi MA, Al-Hawas AM, Al-Bahussain AS, Al-Dajani AA. Is Cronbach’s alpha sufficient for assessing the reliability of the OSCE for an internal medicine course? BMC Res Notes. 2015;2(582):6.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Shrestha B, Dunn L. The declaration of Helsinki on medical research involving human subjects: a review of seventh revision. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2020;17(4):548–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Currency Converter. 1 USD to EUR - convert US dollars to Euros | USD to EUR Currency Converter. Wise; 2023. Available from: https://wise.com/us/currency-converter/usd-to-eur-rate?amount=1. Cited 2023 Jul 10.

  60. Ebi SJ, Deml MJ, Jafflin K, Buhl A, Engel R, Picker J, Häusler J, Wingeier B, Krüerke D, Huber BM, Merten S, Tarr PE. Parents’ vaccination information seeking, satisfaction with and trust in medical providers in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2):e053267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Giannakou K, Kyprianidou M, Hadjikou A, Fakonti G, Photiou G, Tzira E, Heraclides A. Knowledge of mothers regarding children’s vaccinations in Greece: an online cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):2119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Harmsen IA, Doorman GG, Mollema L, Ruiter RA, Kok G, de Melker HE. Parental information-seeking behaviour in childhood vaccinations. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Reñosa MDC, Wachinger J, Bärnighausen K, Endoma V, Landicho-Guevarra J, Landicho J, Bravo TA, Aligato M, McMahon SA. Misinformation, infighting, backlash, and an ‘endless’ recovery; policymakers recount challenges and mitigating measures after a vaccine scare in the Philippines. Glob Health Action. 2022;15(1):2077536.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Peiffer-Smadja N, Ouedraogo R, D’Ortenzio E, Cissé PN, Zeggani Z, Beavogui AH, Faye SL, Le Marcis F, Yazdanpanah Y, Nguyen VK. Vaccination and blood sampling acceptability during Ramadan fasting month: a cross-sectional study in Conakry, Guinea. Vaccine. 2017;35(19):2569–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Almutairi WM, Alsharif F, Khamis F, Sallam LA, Sharif L, Alsufyani A, Alshulah FN, Alqasimi R. Assessment of mothers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding childhood vaccination during the first five years of life in Saudi Arabia. Nurs Rep. 2021;11(3):506–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Brackstone K, Marzo RR, Bahari R, Head MG, Patalinghug ME, Su TT. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the Philippines and Malaysia: a cross-sectional study of sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy. PLOS Global Public Health. 2022O 19;2(10):e0000742.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Damnjanović K, Graeber J, Ilić S, Lam WY, Lep Ž, Morales S, Pulkkinen T, Vingerhoets L. Parental decision-making on childhood vaccination. Front Psychol. 2018;9. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00735. Cited 2023 Jul 16.

  68. Hwang J, Shah DV. Health information sources, perceived vaccination benefits, and maintenance of childhood vaccination schedules. Health Commun. 2019;34(11):1279–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Fazio LK, Brashier N, Kendeou P, Vraga EK, Amazeen MA. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol. 2022;1(1):13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ramadan H, Soliman S, El-kader RA. Knowledge, attitude and practice of mothers toward children’s obligatory vaccination. IOSR-JNHS. 2016;5(4):22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. GebreEyesus FA, Tarekegn TT, Amlak BT, Shiferaw BZ, Emeria MS, Geleta OT, Mewahegn AA, Feleke DG, Chanie ES. Knowledge, attitude, and practices of parents about immunization of infants and its associated factors in Wadla Woreda, North East Ethiopia, 2019. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2021;12:223–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Elbert B, Zainumi CM, Pujiastuti RAD, Yaznil MR, Yanni GN, Alona I, Lubis IND. Mothers’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding child immunization, and the association with child immunization status in Medan City during the COVID-19 pandemic. IJID Reg. 2023;8(Suppl):S22–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Angelillo IF, Ricciardi G, Rossi P, Pantisano P, Langiano E, Pavia M. Mothers and vaccination: knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour in Italy. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(3):224–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Fakonti G, Hadjikou A, Tzira E, Kyprianidou M, Giannakou K. Attitudes and perceptions of mothers towards childhood vaccination in Greece: lessons to improve the childhood COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:951039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Awadh AI, Hassali MA, Al-lela OQ, Bux SH, Elkalmi RM, Hadi H. Immunization knowledge and practice among Malaysian parents: a questionnaire development and pilot-testing. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Marzo RR, Ahmad A, Abid K, Khatiwada AP, Ahmed A, Kyaw TM, Abidin IBZ, Srithar M, Sinnathamby S, Sarvasundram AP, Shrestha S. Factors influencing the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional study from Malaysia. Vacunas. 2022;23:S33–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Marzo RR, Sami W, Alam MZ, Acharya S, Jermsittiparsert K, Songwathana K, Pham NT, Respati T, Faller EM, Baldonado AM, Aung Y, Borkar SM, Essar MY, Shrestha S, Yi S. Hesitancy in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and its associated factors among the general adult population: a cross-sectional study in six Southeast Asian countries. Trop Med Health. 2022;50(1):4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Eller NM, Henrikson NB, Opel DJ. Vaccine Information sources and parental trust in their child’s health care provider. Health Educ Behav. 2019;46(3):445–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Hobani F, Alhalal E. Factors related to parents’ adherence to childhood immunization. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):819.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Mora T, Trapero-Bertran M. The influence of education on the access to childhood immunization: the case of Spain. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):893.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Miller J. Education is now a bigger factor than race in desire for COVID-19 vaccine. USC Schaeffer; 2021. Available from: https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/evidence-base/education-is-now-a-bigger-factor-than-race-in-desire-for-covid-19-vaccine/. Cited 2023 Jul 14.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Goverment of Rwanda and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for providing grant funding (Funding -ID 57398664) for my PhD study. Special thanks go to the research assistants who conducted the field data collection, as well as to all respondents who accepted to participate in the survey. We wish to immensely acknowledge Prof. Eric Achidi Akum and Dr. Nyinchu Robert of the University of Buea – Cameroon and Dr. Srinivas Reddy Pallerla of the Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt – Germany, for inputs on data analysis and research methods.

Funding

This study was funded by the Goverment of Rwanda and the German Academic Exchange Service, (DAAD) with Funding -ID 57398664

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Infectious Diseases, Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Edward Mbonigaba, Claudia M Denkinger, Shannon A McMahon & Simiao Chen

  2. College of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Public, Health- University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda

    Edward Mbonigaba

  3. Interdisciplinary Centre for Scientific Computing, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Fengyun Yu

  4. Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Mark Donald C Reñosa

  5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

    Mark Donald C Reñosa

  6. Buea, Cameroon

    Frederick Nchang Cho

  7. Infectious Disease Laboratory, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon

    Frederick Nchang Cho

  8. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Harold and Inge Marcus, The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkHarrisburg, PA, USA

    Qiushi Chen

  9. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Peking, China

    Simiao Chen

Authors
  1. Edward Mbonigaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fengyun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Donald C Reñosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frederick Nchang Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiushi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claudia M Denkinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shannon A McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Simiao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation: Edward Mbonigaba, Claudia M Denkinger, Shannon A McMahon, and Simiao Chen. Data curation: Edward Mbonigaba, and Frederick Nchang Cho. Formal analysis: Edward Mbonigaba, and Frederick Nchang Cho. Investigation: Edward Mbonigaba. Methodology: Edward Mbonigaba, Fengyun Yu, Frederick Nchang Cho, and Simiao Chen. Project administration: Edward Mbonigaba, Claudia M Denkinger, and Simiao Chen. Resources: Edward Mbonigaba, Claudia M Denkinger, and Simiao Chen. Supervision: Shannon A McMahon, Claudia M Denkinger, Simiao Chen Validation: Edward Mbonigaba, Fengyun Yu, Mark Donald C Reñosa, Frederick Nchang Cho, Qiushi Chen, Shannon A McMahon, Claudia M Denkinger, and Simiao Chen. Writing – original draft: Edward Mbonigaba, Frederick Nchang Cho, Shannon  A McMahon, Claudia  M Denkinger, and Simiao Chen. Writing – review and editing: Edward Mbonigaba, Fengyun Yu, Mark Donald C Reñosa, Frederick Nchang Cho, Shannon A McMahon, Claudia M Denkinger, and Simiao Chen.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Mbonigaba.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and cleared by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Science (No. 402/CMHS IRB/2020) and the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg ethical committee (S-829/2021). All participants signed the informed consent prior to being interviewed.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mbonigaba, E., Yu, F., Reñosa, M.D.C. et al. Knowledge and trust of mothers regarding childhood vaccination in Rwanda. BMC Public Health 24, 1067 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12889-024-18547-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12889-024-18547-1

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us