Dear Editor,
We would like to make a statement regarding the letter written to the editor for our study titled “Factors in Vaccine Refusal by Patients Applying for COVID-19 PCR Test” and was published in Medeniyet Medical Journal1.
First, we would like to thank the authors for their interest in our study2. We believe that such criticisms greatly contribute to scientific studies3. We also congratulate the author for his scientific courage.
Community resistance to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has begun to be addressed in new studies4,5. We find the results of the studies conducted on this subject precious. However, in our study1, we deemed it appropriate to perform the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and evaluate only those who refused to be vaccinated.
The purpose of study1 was to determine the reasons for vaccine rejection in patients who applied for a COVID-19 PCR test but did not receive the vaccine. To reveal the underlying reasons for refusing to be vaccinated, direct questions were asked to the participants and their answers were analyzed.
However, to understand whether the reasons for refusing to be vaccinated are limited to COVID-19, participants were also asked about their opinions on childhood vaccines. In such studies, it is appropriate to analyze data based on the answers given by the participants. The results were compared with the demographic data of the participants. As can be understood from the purpose of the study, the scope is limited to people who refuse vaccination. For this reason, all stages were performed in accordance with the purpose of the study. The objectives exclude whether the vaccine is beneficial or not, or comparing those who accept and refuse to be vaccinated6. This point is clearly stated in the “inclusion criteria” of the study1.
Participants who agreed to be vaccinated and who were involved in the development of methods to deal with vaccine rejection were not included in this study. However, we definitely see these good ideas as important. These points can be addressed in future studies. These points are among the limitations of our study1.
We thank the author for providing the basis for these beautiful scientific discussions and evaluations. We also congratulate you, the editor of the journal, for bringing both sides together on this useful discussion.
We declare that we are open to any criticism regarding the study.
We respect you.
