Abstract
BACKGROUND The success of vaccination efforts to curb the COVID-19 pandemic will require broad public uptake of immunization and highlights the importance of understanding factors associated with willingness to receive a vaccine.
METHODS Adults enrolled in the Heartline™ clinical study were invited to complete a COVID-19 vaccine assessment through the Heartline™ mobile application between November 6-20, 2020. Factors associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine were evaluated using an ordered logistic regression as well as a Random Forest classification algorithm.
RESULTS Among 9,106 study participants, 81.3% (n=7402) responded and had available demographic data. The majority (91.3%) reported a willingness to be vaccinated. Factors most strongly associated with vaccine willingness were beliefs about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general. Women and Black or African American respondents reported lower willingness to vaccinate. Among those less willing to get vaccinated, 66.2% said that they would talk with their health provider before making a decision. During the study, positive results from the first COVID-19 vaccine outcome study were released; vaccine willingness increased after this report.
CONCLUSIONS Even among older adults at high-risk for COVID-19 complications who are participating in a longitudinal clinical study, 1 in 11 reported lack of willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine in November 2020. Variability in vaccine willingness by gender, race, education, and income suggests the potential for uneven vaccine uptake. Education by health providers directed toward assuaging concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy can help improve vaccine acceptance among those less willing.
Competing Interest Statement
Mike Gibson - Research grant support from Janssen Mintu Turakhia - Grant support from Janssen and Apple; consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson; Dr. Turakhia is also an editor of JAMA Cardiology
Clinical Trial
NCT04276441
Funding Statement
The Heartline™ Study is supported by Johnson & Johnson and Apple. Apple neither supported nor participated in survey development or interpretation for this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The protocol and all participant-facing materials used in Heartline, including the survey instrument deployed to support the submitted article, have been approved for use by the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB), an independent IRB accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP). WIRB is part of the WIRB-Copernicus Group (WCG). https://www.wcgirb.com/ The Heartline protocol, all patient-facing materials such as surveys, study website (heartline.com), advertisements, and the informed consent form can be referenced at WIRB as Protocol #20191385
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos