Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River South Senatorial District, Nigeria

International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS) Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2025, pp. 1857~1865 ISSN: 2252-8806, DOI: 10.11591/ijphs.v14i4.26130  1857 Journal homepage: http://ijphs.iaescore.com Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River South Senatorial District, Nigeria Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo1, Glory Eteng Bassey2, Nkoyo Patrick Bassey1, Lilian Otu Ubi1, Mathew Mike Egong1 1Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria 2Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria Article Info ABSTRACT Article history: Received Oct 22, 2024 Revised Sep 6, 2025 Accepted Nov 3, 2025 The COVID-19 outbreak resulted in widespread concern and disruption globally. The development of vaccines was a significant focus in mitigating the impact of the deadly virus. However, vaccine uptake in many regions has been challenging, including the Cross River South Senatorial District. This study examines the socio-demographic variables influencing the adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine. Data was collected from 750 respondents through the questionnaire. Bivariate analysis using Chi-square statistics was used to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and covariates, including age, sex, location, occupation status, religion, educational status, and availability of COVID-19 vaccination sites. A logistic regression model was used to ascertain this connection. Based on the findings, COVID-19 uptake was 32.3%. Employment status was the only variable statistically significant with the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. When promoting the use of vaccines, consideration should be given to variables other than personal characteristics. With the low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines, continued efforts are needed to improve the vaccination uptake rate by all segments of the study population. Keywords: COVID-19 Nigeria Socio-demographic Uptakers Vaccination This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. Corresponding Author: Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calabar Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria Email: [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 related global health emergency has emphasized the significance of vaccination as a vital instrument for preventing the spread of infectious illnesses [1]. The COVID-19 outbreak has demonstrated notable inequalities in health across different demographic groups, particularly concerning adopting COVID-19 vaccinations. Despite the widespread availability of vaccines, uptake rates have been uneven among various age groups, genders, and ethnicities. Many nations experience vaccine hesitancy, with acceptance levels varying both in advanced industrialized countries and low-income countries [2]. The World Health Organisation (WHO) ranks vaccination reluctance among the top ten significant challenges to global health. Since the administration of the first vaccination more than 200 years ago, there has been vaccine hesitancy [3]. With the WHO’s initial target of administering 20% of the COVID-19 vaccines to 20% of the population in every country, as of early September 2021, just 12 nations with low and moderate incomes out of 47 had achieved the 20% target, while the vast majority of high-income countries (HICs) had exceeded it [4]. No low-income country (LIC) has done so either [4]. As of 21 September 2022, only 15% of the population of Nigeria had completed the COVID-19 vaccination [5]. At the present pace, Nigeria is unlikely  ISSN: 2252-8806 Int J Public Health Sci, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2025: 1857-1865 1858 to reach its COVID-19 vaccination targets [6]. More than 15% of Nigeria's target population is unlikely to receive vaccinations [6]. This observation is not unconnected with vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria. Vaccine hesitancy is a significant area of interest within public health. There has always been vaccine hesitancy (VH) in Nigeria over the years [7]. Of the 9.0 million zero-dose diphtheriapertussisand tetanus toxoids (DPT) children in 2019, around two-thirds (65%) were in ten different countries: Nigeria, India, Brazil, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Pakistan, and Mexico [8]. Recent evidence suggests that many factors, such as knowledge, educational attainment, ethnicity, sociocultural influences, religious beliefs, personal risk perception, social media access, fear of side effects, accessibility to medical facilities, information sources, and degree of faith in the healthcare system, may have an impact on vaccination uptake [9]. Sociodemographic factors, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, are among the most significant factors in accepting different medical interventions [10]. Data from a previous study have shown that the country has different vaccination rates, with the southern states having higher rates than the northern states and higher rates in urban compared to rural areas within states, according to the experiences of the GAVI-sponsored routine immunization program [11]. Factors affecting the adoption of the COVID-19 vaccination have been explored in several studies. Demographic characteristics such as sex, place of residence, marital status, age, education, and religious affiliation are often linked to the adoption of the COVID-19 vaccination [12]. Acceptance was more accurately predicted by respondents' confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccination than by their socioeconomic status [13]. Religious and cultural beliefs greatly influence how people seek health care [14]. Further, some populations in Nigeria may be reluctant to get vaccines because of past experiences with medical research or government health initiatives [15]. Many factors, such as knowledge, educational attainment, ethnicity, sociocultural influences, religious beliefs, personal risk perception, social media access, fear of side effects, accessibility to medical facilities, information sources, and degree of faith in the healthcare system, could affect the uptake of vaccinations [9]. In addition, vaccine reluctance may also be influenced by false information, conspiracy theories, and a lack of faith in the government and medical establishments [16]. Several studies [9], [17], [18] have identified the factors affecting the knowledge, attitude, and desire to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. However, there is a lack of information regarding whether these projected acceptance percentages and campaigns correspond to actual vaccine acceptance [19]. Most studies have only been carried out on vaccine reluctance rather than those on COVID-19 vaccine uptake [20]. The main worry is that if nothing is done, reluctance to get an immunization could turn into outright refusal or continue to be passive avoidance [21]. What is less clear is our knowledge of the traits of prospective uptakers and how to customize interventions to fit behavioral and demographic profiles. This study contributes to the expanding body of research in this field by examining the likely uptakers of COVID-19 vaccines - those most likely to accept vaccination in an urban and rural population have emerged as a crucial area of focus for enhancing vaccine uptake and optimizing outreach tactics. For a vaccination program to be successful, it is essential to know who will receive the vaccine, who does not or is unsure, and why [22]. We hypothesized that the location of residence, age, sex, employment status, educational level, religious affiliation, marital status, health condition, and availability of COVID-19 vaccination sites are major predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake. 2. METHOD 2.1. Study design and population The study was conducted as a survey with data gathered via questionnaire in Cross River State, located in South-south Nigeria, to assess the demographic predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The survey was carried out in March and April 2023. The study examined the connections between the independent variables (age, sex, educational attainment, marital status, place of residence, employment status, availability of COVID-19 vaccination sites, and having a chronic medical condition) and the dependent variable (vaccine uptake) using a cross-sectional approach. Eligibility criteria required individuals to be at least 18 years old, eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and reside in these urban and rural communities in the state. Adults who gave their consent were eligible for inclusion in the study; those who refused were not. 2.2. Sample size The Leslie Kish formula was used to estimate the sample size (1965) for cross-sectional studies, with a standard normal deviation set at 1.96, or a 95% confidence level, an estimated COVID-19 vaccine utilization of 33% as reported by [23], and the desired level of precision of 5%. The estimated minimum sample size for each local government area was 373, and 746 for the two local government areas. Int J Public Health Sci ISSN: 2252-8806  Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River … (Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo) 1859 2.3. Sampling procedure Participants were selected for the study using a multi-stage sampling procedure. To ensure all relevant subgroups are represented in the sample, the stratified sampling technique was adopted in the first stage. The population was divided into subgroups or strata based on the study variables such as place of residence (urban, rural), age, sex, and employment status. The simple random sampling technique was employed in the second stage to select two (an urban and a rural area) of the seven local government areas (Calabar Municipal and Odukpani) from the Southern Senatorial district of Cross River State. Thereafter, six communities (each constituting a cluster from six political wards) were selected from the two local government areas using the simple random method. While preserving sample diversity, this method streamlines data collection by focusing efforts on particular geographic regions. Following the identification of clusters, respondents were selected from households in each community using convenience sampling. Combining these methods provides a strong, varied, and representative sample for the study of the drivers influencing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Cross Rivers South senatorial district. 2.4. Data collection/study variables Skilled and seasoned field data collectors used a pre-tested questionnaire to conduct in-person interviews to gather data. Demographic factors like place of residence, age, religion, and sex were included to determine their impact on vaccination uptake. Also, socioeconomic and structural factors were captured by asking about medical conditions, work status, and access to immunization locations. To make sure the questionnaire was clear, valid, and reliable, 50 individuals from a population similar to the study sample were used for pre-testing. Based on the pre-test results, the necessary changes were effected. The data collectors received a two-day orientation and training to familiarize them with the study goals, the design, and the tool for data collection. The dependent variable was COVID-19 vaccine uptake, defined by whether participants had been immunized or not. The independent variables were the place of residence (Calabar Municipal and Odukpani), sex (male and female), age (categorized as less than 24 years, 25–34 years, 35– 44years, 45 years or more), marital status (single, married, and divorced/separated/widowed), education level (no formal education, primary, secondary, and tertiary), religious affiliation (Christianity, Islam, Traditional religion, others), employment status (employed with government, employed in the private sector, self-employed, and unemployed), and availability of COVID-19 vaccination site (yes or no), and having a health condition (yes, no, and unknown). 2.5. Data analysis All analyses were carried out using Stata version 18. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize participants’ demographic characteristics. Bivariate analysis using chi-square statistics was used to explore the association between COVID-19 vaccination and predictors, including age, sex, location, employment status, religion, educational status, and availability of COVID-19 vaccination sites. A logistic regression model was used to determine this association. The best-fit option was used for predictor selection, and the model was checked for consistency using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test, p = 0.41. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% CI were used to report the results. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Results The results, as shown in Table 1, indicate that just over half of the sample, 394 (52.53%) were female, of whom 51.87% were rural residents. Also, 345 (46%), 130 (17.33%), and 171 (22.8%) had tertiary, secondary, and primary levels of education, respectively. 429 (56.8%) were aged 45 and above, 409 (54.53%) were government employees, married were 519 (69.2%). Table 2 reveals that 637 (84.93%) had no medical condition, and 600 (80%) had a COVID-19 vaccination site within their locality. Most respondents (n = 508, % = 67.7) had never received a COVID-19 vaccine. Table 2 shows the outcomes of the association between the respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics and COVID-19 vaccine utilization. The unemployed (42%), privately employed (36.6%), or self-employed (40.7%) responded better to COVID-19 vaccination uptake compared with government workers (27.1%), which was significant at p = 0.009. This was also reflected in the regression model as shown in Table 3. The adjusted odds ratio of vaccination uptake in self-employed individuals (using government-employed as a reference) is 1.79 (95% CI:1.09-2.94; p<0.022). Similarly, the adjusted odds ratio of vaccination uptake in the unemployed (using government-employed as reference) is 1.90 (95% CI:1.033.49; p<0.04). All the adjusted odds ratios are adjusted for age, sex, location, educational status, concurrent medical condition, and availability of COVID-19 vaccination sites.  ISSN: 2252-8806 Int J Public Health Sci, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2025: 1857-1865 1860 Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants and COVID-19 vaccination status [N = 750] Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Place of residence Urban 361 48.13 Rural 389 51.87 Sex Female 394 52.53 Male 356 47.47 Age <24 104 13.87 25-34 81 10.8 35-44 139 18.53 >45 426 56.8 Educational level No formal education 104 13.87 Primary 171 22.8 Secondary 130 17.33 Tertiary 345 46.00 Employment status Employed with the government 409 54.53 Employed in the private sector 205 27.33 Self-employed 86 11.47 Unemployed 50 6.67 Marital status Single 185 24.67 Married 519 69.2 Divorced/separated/widowed 46 6.13 Religious affiliation Christianity 316 42.13 Islam 279 37.2 Traditional religion 100 13.33 Others 55 7.33 Table 2. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake [N = 750] Variable Number Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination X2 p-value Vaccinated Not vaccinated N % N = 242 32.3 (%) N = 508 67.7 (%) Place of residence Urban 361 48.13 112 46.28 249 49.02 0.4910 0.483 Rural 389 51.87 130 53.72 259 50.98 Sex Female 394 52.53 138 57.02 256 50.39 2.8904 0.089 Male 356 47.47 104 42.98 252 49.61 Age <24 104 13.87 32 13.22 72 14.17 1.8906 0.595 25-34 81 10.8 29 11.98 52 10.24 35-44 139 18.53 50 20.66 89 17.52 >45 426 56.80 131 54.13 295 58.07 Educational level No formal education 104 13.87 34 32.69 70 67.31 2.1936 0.533 Primary 17 22.8 59 34.50 112 65.50 Secondary 130 17.33 35 26.92 95 73.08 Tertiary 345 46.00 114 33.04 231 66.96 Employment status Employed with government 409 54.53 111 45.87 298 58.66 11.6337 0.009* Employed in the private sector 205 27.33 75 30.99 130 25.59 Self-employed 86 11.47 35 14.46 51 10.04 Unemployed 50 6.67 21 8.68 29 5.71 Marital status Single 185 24.67 60 24.79 125 24.61 2.5164 0.284 Married 519 69.2 172 71.07 347 68.31 Divorced/separated/widowed 46 6.13 0 4.13 36 7.09 Religious affiliation Christianity 316 42.13 103 42.56 213 41.93 3.2775 0.351 Islam 279 37.20 81 33.47 198 38.98 Traditional religion 100 13.33 38 15.70 62 12.20 Others 55 7.33 20 8.26 35 6.89 Have medical condition Yes 17 2.27 7 2.89 10 1.97 3.4927 0.174 No 637 84.93 197 81.40 440 86.61 Unknown 96 12.8 38 15.70 58 11.42 Availability of COVID-19 Vaccination site Yes 600 80.00 190 31.67 410 68.33 0.4942 0.482 No 150 20.00 52 34.67 98 65.33 3.2. Discussion In assessing COVID-19 vaccine adoption, the chi-square test did not show any significant differences between location, educational attainment, age, sex, having a medical condition, and the availability of immunization sites. Out of all the variables examined in this study, there was a significant difference between employment status and COVID-19 vaccination uptake. These findings may be taken to indicate how important socioeconomic considerations are in determining public health outcomes, and the possibility that psychological or social impacts, and other unexamined variables, may be more critical in determining vaccine uptake in the study area. Int J Public Health Sci ISSN: 2252-8806  Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River … (Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo) 1861 Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the factors influencing the use of the COVID-19 vaccine Variable Adjusted OR 95% CI p-value Location Urban Reference Rural 1.15 (0.84-1.57) 0.385 Sex Male Reference Female 0.08 (0.58-1.10) 0.171 Age <24 Reference 25-34 1.22 (0.65-2.29) 0.530 35-44 1.26 (0.72-2.18) 0.417 >45 1.05 (0.66-1.69) 0.830 Educational level No formal education Reference Primary 1.10 (0.65-1.86) 0.726 Secondary 0.95 (0.53-1.72) 0.874 Tertiary 1.15 (0.53-1.72) 0.563 Employment status Employed with government Reference Employed in the private sector 1.45 (0.99-2.12) 0.056 Self-employed 1.79 (1.09-2.94) 0.022* Unemployed 1.90 (1.03-3.49) 0.040* Have medical condition No Reference Yes 1.21 (0.97-1.51) 0.098 Availability of COVID-19 Vaccination site No Reference Yes 0.90 (0.61-1.33) 0.603 The results of this study show that the COVID-19 vaccination uptake was 32.3% indicating a low level in the uptake. Following the release of the COVID-19 vaccine only approximately one in three adults had been vaccinated in Calabar and Odukpani Local Government Areas of Cross River State. Our study showed a higher rate of vaccine uptake than the 29% uptake rate observed among academics, healthcare professionals, and postsecondary students surveyed in Nigeria [24]. This finding is consistent with the rate of 31.1% in the general public and medical staff in a general hospital in Nigeria [25]; also, two-thirds of the participants (67%) among Nigerians in a nationally representative sample, were not vaccinated against COVID-19 [26]. An estimated pooled prevalence for the COVID-19 acceptance rate among Nigerians which ranges from 20.0% to 58.2% was also reported [6]. However, the finding of the current study is much lower compared to the value reported in a geriatric center in Nigeria where over 50% of the individuals were classified as not hesitant, having had the COVID-19 vaccination [27]. This result is encouraging, especially among elderly individuals at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The low uptake rate of the vaccines in Nigeria reflects the public's perception of the virus and attitude towards the vaccination. A prior study in Nigeria reported that one explanation offered for the lack of interest in testing for COVID-19 was that there was widespread "disbelief" regarding COVID-19's existence [28]. The acceptance of vaccination has always been met with hesitancy in Nigeria. These can be deduced from previous vaccine hesitance [29]. The generality of the populace did not believe in the existence of the disease due to several myths surrounding COVID-19's existence in Nigeria [30]. The most obvious finding to emerge from the analysis is that employment status and COVID-19 vaccine uptake are significantly correlated, with self-employed and unemployed people showing higher vaccination likelihood than government employees. In particular, the likelihood of receiving the immunization was 1.79 times higher for self-employed people and 1.90 times higher for unemployed people. These findings indicate that vaccine decision-making may be influenced by occupational and socioeconomic factors, and they also show significant variations in vaccine behavior across employment groups. Workplace limitations or schedules may be less of a barrier for the unemployed to visit immunization locations. The results are consistent with earlier research that highlights how socioeconomic factors influence vaccination behavior. For example, in a study among civil servants in Nigeria, respondents had a high degree of awareness of the COVID-19 virus and vaccination, two-fifths of them were not fully vaccinated, even though vaccination was required in several of the states where the survey was conducted [31]. The result differed with a review [32] which reported a lower acceptance rate for individuals without jobs and those with lower incomes. These results support a previous study conducted in Nigeria, which demonstrated that when compared to respondents in other occupations, individuals who were self-employed or whose monthly income was above the 30,000 Naira national minimum salary were more likely to be immunized [19]. This may be due to the nature of their jobs which frequently involve direct contact with clients or consumers and, might also indicate more freedom in making immunization appointments as opposed to workers constrained by company rules. To ensure successful adherence to COVID-19 immunization, the Nigerian government has been known to impose mandatory vaccinations on its populace through directives [33]. This result is contrary to a previous study conducted in Nigeria, which reported that self-employed respondents accepted vaccines  ISSN: 2252-8806 Int J Public Health Sci, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2025: 1857-1865 1862 much less with a 0.68 times likelihood of accepting vaccination compared to government employees [11]. A possible explanation for this might be because of the self-employed person's high out-of-pocket medical expenses due to a lack of health insurance and the possibility that the vaccine has a cost [11]. Contrary to expectations, this study did not find a significant difference between place of residence, age, sex, marital status, educational attainment, religion, availability of COVID-19 sites, and having a medical condition with the adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine in both the bivariate and multivariate analysis. A strong relationship between demographic factors like sex, age, marital status, religion, and place of residence and vaccination uptake has been reported in the literature [11], [26], [34], [35]. This study's results, however, deviate from these conclusions by identifying employment status as the most important factor. This inconsistency may be due to the population's unique socioeconomic background, as employment may have a greater influence on access to resources and healthcare services than other variables. This lack of a strong correlation emphasizes how complex and situation-specific vaccine adoption behavior are. What is curious about this result is that age and educational attainment are two factors that have been repeatedly found to be significant predictors of vaccination uptake in previous research. This outcome is contrary to a study in Nigeria, which reported that those who were 60 years of age or older and had higher levels of education were more likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccination [26]. Reports of sex-based differences in vaccination uptake in the state of Arkansas in the United States found that women were more likely than men to be hesitant about getting COVID-19 immunization [36]. In contrast to earlier findings which, highlighted that religion, male gender, tribe/ethnicity, place of residence, and education were significantly correlated with vaccine acceptance or uptake [34], [37], however, this does not appear to be the case in the current study. Age, sex, race, and education all significantly influenced respondents' attitudes toward COVID-19 and general vaccines; younger respondents and those with lower incomes and levels of education expressed more hesitancy [36]. In contrast, in a study in a university community in Nigeria, COVID-19 vaccine reluctance was substantially correlated with three factors: age, marital status, and membership in the Christian faith [35]. Younger members of the university community were found to be more likely than older members to receive the vaccination, ever married members exhibited greater hesitancy than the community's never married members, and compared to Pentecostals and Sabbatharians, the COVID-19 vaccine was more likely to be accepted by Roman Catholics and Protestants [35]. These findings further support the idea of [38], [39] who found no correlation between religion and vaccine acceptance in United States and Canada. Also, this aligns with the position of [40] who reported that marital status and gender were not significantly related to COVID-19 uptake in Russia. A major limitation of the study is the use of the convenience sampling technique in selecting eligible respondents, which was also pointed out in a study [41], results in sample selection bias. Causal relationship inference is limited by cross-sectional design. Also, social desirability bias and recollection bias may affect responses. Despite its limitations, the study certainly adds to our understanding of the socio-demographic factors influencing the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. 4. CONCLUSION This study set out to examine the relationship between socio-demographic variables and the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. With the low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines, the evidence from this study suggests that continued efforts are needed to improve the vaccination uptake rate by all segments of the study population. Also, the information from the study can be used by the government and other relevant stakeholders to develop targeted interventions aimed at ensuring future vaccine uptake. When promoting the use of vaccines, consideration should be given to variables other than personal characteristics. Further studies, which adopt the Intersectional methods to examine how individual characteristics interact with the societal, economic, and environmental factors to influence vaccine uptake will need to be undertaken. FUNDING INFORMATION Authors state no funding involved. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration. Int J Public Health Sci ISSN: 2252-8806  Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River … (Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo) 1863 Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Glory Eteng Bassey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Nkoyo Patrick Bassey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lillian Otu Ubi ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mathew Mike Egong ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C : Conceptualization M : Methodology So : Software Va : Validation Fo : Formal analysis I : Investigation R : Resources D : Data Curation O : Writing - Original Draft E : Writing - Review & Editing Vi : Visualization Su : Supervision P : Project administration Fu : Funding acquisition CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT Authors state no conflict of interest. INFORMED CONSENT Before data collection, the participants received an explanation of the study. After obtaining oral informed consent from the respondents, the questionnaire was administered. Responses were anonymized to ensure confidentiality, and there were no financial incentives for participation; it was voluntary. ETHICAL APPROVAL Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Calabar Research Ethical Review Board, Directorate of Research and Development (UC/DR&D/RERB/56). DATA AVAILABILITY Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [VAU], on request. REFERENCES [1] B. Tang, X. Zhang, Q. Li, N. L. Bragazzi, D. Golemi-Kotra, and J. Wu, “The minimal COVID-19 vaccination coverage and efficacy to compensate for a potential increase of transmission contacts, and increased transmission probability of the emerging strains,” BMC Public Health, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 1258, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13429-w. [2] C. Kimble, A. Coustasse, and K. Maxik, “Considerations on the distribution and administration of the new COVID-19 vaccines,” International Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 306–310, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/20479700.2020.1859778. [3] World Health Organization (WHO), “Global COVID-19 vaccination—strategic vision for 2022.” 2021. [4] P. M. Galagali, A. A. Kinikar, and V. S. Kumar, “Vaccine hesitancy: obstacles and challenges,” Current Pediatrics Reports, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 241–248, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40124-022-00278-9. [5] T. J. Ogunniyi, B. O. Rufai, S. N. Uketeh, J. K. Turzin, E. A. Oyinloye, and F. B. Effiong, “Two years of COVID-19 vaccination in Nigeria: a review of the current situation of the pandemic: a literature review,” Annals of Medicine & Surgery, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 5528–5532, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001310. [6] O. Olu-Abiodun, O. Abiodun, and N. Okafor, “COVID-19 vaccination in Nigeria: A rapid review of vaccine acceptance rate and the associated factors,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 5, p. e0267691, May 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267691. [7] R. Sato and Y. Takasaki, “Vaccine hesitancy and refusal: behavioral evidence from rural Northern Nigeria,” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 1023, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.3390/vaccines9091023. [8] A. N. Chard, M. Gacic-Dobo, M. S. Diallo, S. V. Sodha, and A. S. Wallace, “Routine vaccination coverage — Worldwide, 2019,” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 69, no. 45, pp. 1706–1710, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a7. [9] D. O. Allagoa et al., “Predictors of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among patients at a tertiary hospital in South-South Nigeria,” International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2165–2172, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20211733. [10] M. Al-Mohaithef and B. K. Padhi, “Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Saudi Arabia: A web-based national survey,” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, vol. Volume 13, pp. 1657–1663, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S276771. [11] E. A. Tobin, M. Okonofua, A. Adeke, and A. Obi, “Willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in Nigeria: A population-based cross-sectional study,” Central African Journal of Public Health, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 53, 2021, doi: 10.11648/j.cajph.20210702.12. [12] P. Adu et al., “Implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A systematic review,” Journal of Infection and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 441–466, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.01.020.  ISSN: 2252-8806 Int J Public Health Sci, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2025: 1857-1865 1864 [13] J. Amo-Adjei, A. Nurzhynska, R. Essuman, and A.-L. Lohiniva, “Trust and willingness towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a mixed-method study in Ghana, 2021,” Archives of Public Health, vol. 80, no. 1, p. 64, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s13690-02200827-0. [14] V. A. Undelikwo, G. E. Bassey, N. E. Ikpi, L. O. Ubi, and R. I. Eneji, “Perceptions of and barriers to uptake of contraceptives in plantation farming communities of Cross River State, Nigeria: A qualitative inquiry,” African Journal of Reproductive Health, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 83–95, 2024, doi: 10.29063/ajrh2024/v28i2.8. [15] G. T. Agbede, D. Emezirinwune, T. Adedokun, and P. Idowu-Collins, “Vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria: Overcoming cultural, linguistic and religious obstacles,” Information Impact: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 153–168, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.4314/iijikm.v15i1.12. [16] R. K. Sinuraya, R. F. Nuwarda, M. J. Postma, and A. A. Suwantika, “Vaccine hesitancy and equity: lessons learned from the past and how they affect the COVID-19 countermeasure in Indonesia,” Globalization and Health, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 11, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00987-w. [17] H. Adedeji-Adenola, O. A. Olugbake, and S. A. Adeosun, “Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among adults in Nigeria,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264371. [18] A. S. Oyekale, “Factors influencing willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in Nigeria,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 6816, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116816. [19] A. I. Al-Mustapha et al., “Socio-demographic characteristics of COVID-19 vaccine recipients in Kwara State, North Central Nigeria,” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 9, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.773998. [20] I. Sokale et al., “COVID-19 vaccine uptake among US adults according to standard occupational groups,” Vaccines, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 1000, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/vaccines10071000. [21] M. Webb Hooper, A. M. Nápoles, and E. J. Pérez-Stable, “No populations left behind: Vaccine hesitancy and equitable diffusion of effective COVID-19 vaccines,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 2130–2133, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06698-5. [22] E. Robertson et al., “Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK household longitudinal study,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, vol. 94, pp. 41–50, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.008. [23] S. Agha et al., “Drivers of COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) in Nigeria,” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1162, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/vaccines9101162. [24] E. O. Njoga et al., “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and determinants of acceptance among healthcare workers, academics and tertiary students in Nigeria,” Vaccines, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 626, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/vaccines10040626. [25] B. O. Ogbonda, G. Owhonda, A. Luke, I. D. Jaja, P. Green, and O. M. Pius, “Covid 19: Determinants and barriers to infection prevention and control practice among residents in Bonny Island, Rivers State,” Nigerian Health Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, 2022. [26] T. O. Ojo, A. O. Ojo, O. E. Ojo, B. O. Akinwalere, and A. F. Akinwumi, “Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Nigerians: evidence from a cross-sectional national survey,” Archives of Public Health, vol. 81, no. 1, p. 95, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01107-1. [27] L. A. Adebusoye, E. O. Cadmus, O. Oyinlola, and O. Abiola, “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults in a Geriatric Centre in Nigeria,” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 12, p. e51102, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.51102. [28] V. A. Undelikwo, S. Shilton, M. O. Folayan, O. Alaba, E. I. Reipold, and G. Z. Martínez-Pérez, “COVID-19 self-testing in Nigeria: Stakeholders’ opinions and perspectives on its value for case detection,” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 4, p. e0282570, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282570. [29] K.-D. O. Sulaiman, “An assessment of Muslims reactions to the immunization of children in Northern Nigeria,” Medical Journal of Islamic World Academy of Sciences, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 123–132, 2014, doi: 10.12816/0008183. [30] O. Efuntoye et al., “Review of COVID-19 vaccine,” Nigerian Journal of Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 356–361, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.4103/NJM.NJM_67_21. [31] N. S. Awunor et al., “Knowledge, perception, and uptake of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among Nigerian civil servants: Implications for evidence-based policies,” Journal of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 89–102, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.4314/jcmphc.v35i2.9. [32] G. Troiano and A. Nardi, “Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19,” Public Health, vol. 194, pp. 245–251, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.02.025. [33] V. A. Undelikwo, N. E. Ikpi, and G. E. Bassey, “Factors influencing contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in plantation farming communities in South-South Nigeria,” African Journal of Reproductive Health, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 67–75, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.29063/ajrh2023/v27i2.7. [34] U. A. Eze et al., “Determinants for acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine in Nigeria,” Cureus, vol. 13, no. 11, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.7759/cureus.19801. [35] I. C. Uzochukwu et al., “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among staff and students in a Nigerian tertiary educational institution,” Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease, vol. 8, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1177/20499361211054923. [36] P. A. McElfish, D. E. Willis, S. K. Shah, K. Bryant-Moore, M. O. Rojo, and J. P. Selig, “Sociodemographic determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, fear of infection, and protection self-efficacy,” Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, vol. 12, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1177/21501327211040746. [37] C. O. Olomofe et al., “Predictors of uptake of a potential COVID-19 vaccine among Nigerian adults.” Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination, vol. 12, no. 1, Jan. 04, 2021. doi: 10.1101/2020.12.28.20248965. [38] J. Park, J. Choi, and B. Kim, “COVID-19 pandemic and mental health problems of adults in United States: mediating roles of cognitive concerns and behavioral changes,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1557–1570, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00127-022-02265-3. [39] G. S. Ogilvie et al., “Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine: results from a population-based survey in Canada,” BMC Public Health, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 1017, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11098-9. [40] Y. Roshchina, S. Roshchin, and K. Rozhkova, “Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Russia,” Vaccine, vol. 40, no. 39, pp. 5739–5747, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.042. [41] V. A. Undelikwo, N. E. Ikpi, and G. E. Bassey, “Factors influencing contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in plantation farming communities in South-South Nigeria,” African Journal of Reproductive Health, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 67–75, 2023, doi: 10.29063/ajrh2023/v27i2.7. Int J Public Health Sci ISSN: 2252-8806  Likely uptakers of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Cross River … (Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo) 1865 BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS Veronica Akwenabuaye Undelikwo is a demographer currently working as a Senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of Calabar. She is a member of the International Sociological Association (ISA), Population Association of Nigeria (PAN), and The Forum of Women in Education in Nigeria. Her research interests are focused on fertility and family planning, gender, and reproductive health. She can be contacted at email: [email protected]. Glory Eteng Bassey is a Rural Sociologist and Community Development expert working as a lecturer I in the Department of Social Work, University of Calabar. She is a member of National Association of Sociology and Anthropology (NASA), National Association of Social Workers (NASOW) and Forum for African Women in Education, Nigeria (FAWEN). Her research interest is community development, gender issues, and family welfare. She can be contacted at email: [email protected]. Nkoyo Patrick Bassey has masters in medical Sociology and is working as a Scientific Officer in Federal Neuro Psychiatric Hospital Calabar. She is currently a Ph.D. student in the Department of Sociology, University of Calabar. She is a member of National Institute of Science Laboratory Technologist, Association of Sociologist of Education in Nigeria (ASEN) and International Society of Substance Use Professionals (ISSUP). Her research interests are on general health and wellbeing and gender. She can be contacted at email: [email protected]. Lillian Otu Ubi is a demographer/sociologist currently doing a Ph.D. programme in the Department of Sociology, University of Calabar, Nigeria. She is a lecturer II at the University of Calabar. She can be contacted at email: u[email protected]. Mathew Mike Egong is a lecturer II in the Department of Sociology, University of Calabar, Nigeria. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology of Development. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].