Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore public attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines in the UK, focused on intentions and decisions around taking vaccines, views on ‘vaccine passports’, and experiences and perspectives on post-vaccination behavior.
DESIGN Qualitative study consisting of 6 online focus groups conducted between 15th March – 22nd April 2021.
SETTING Online video conferencing
PARTICIPANTS 29 adult UK-based participants
RESULTS Three main groups regarding participants’ decision or intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine were identified: (1) Accepters, (2) Delayers and (3) Refusers. Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need more information and delay until vaccine was “required” in the future. Three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six barriers (Preference for “natural immunity”; Concerns over possible side effects; Distrust in government; Perceived lack of information; Conspiracy theories; “Covid echo chambers”) to vaccine uptake were identified. For some delayers, vaccine passports were perceived to be a reason why they would get vaccinated in the future. However, vaccine passports were controversial, and were framed in three main ways: as “a necessary evil”; as “Orwellian”; and as a “human rights problem”. Participants generally felt that receiving a vaccine was not changing the extent to which people were adhering to COVID-19 measures.
CONCLUSIONS Overall, positive sentiment toward vaccines was high. However, there remains a number of potential barriers which might be leading to vaccine delay in some. ‘Vaccine delay’ might be a more useful and precise construct than vaccine hesitancy in explaining why some may initially ignore or be uncertain about vaccination invitations. Vaccine passports may increase or ‘nudge’ uptake in some delayers but remain controversial. Earlier concerns that vaccination might reduce adherence to social distancing measures are not borne out in our data, with most people reporting ongoing adherence and caution.
Competing Interest Statement
SW and KA are currently funded by and collaborating with Public Health Wales on a separate study. This study was funded by grants from the University of Manchester and Swansea University. No funders or external bodies had any role in the design or implementation of the present study and paper. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the Manchester Centre for Health Psychology based at the University of Manchester (GBP 2000) and Swansea University's 'Greatest Need Fund' (GBP 3000).
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:
Ethical approval was received by Swansea University's School of Management Research Ethics Committee and College of Human and Health Sciences.
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
Footnotes
s.n.williams{at}swansea.ac.uk
k.a.dienes{at}swansea.ac.uk
Data Availability
Ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality prohibit the authors from making the data set publicly available. During the consent process, participants were explicitly guaranteed that the data would only be seen my members of the study team. For any discussions about the data set please contact the corresponding author, Simon Williams (s.n.williams{at}swansea.ac.uk).
