ABSTRACT
Introduction Approval for the use of COVID-19 vaccines has been granted in a number of countries but there are concerns that vaccine uptake may be low amongst certain groups.
Methods This study used a mixed methods approach based on online survey and an embedded quantitative/qualitative design to explore perceptions and attitudes that were associated with intention to either accept or refuse offers of vaccination in different demographic groups during the early stages of the UK’s mass COVID-19 vaccination programme (December 2020). Analysis used multivariate logistic regression, structural text modelling and anthropological assessments.
Results Of 4,535 respondents, 85% (n=3,859) were willing to have a COVID-19 vaccine. The rapidity of vaccine development and uncertainties about safety were common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. There was no evidence for the widespread influence of mis-information, although broader vaccine hesitancy was associated with intentions to refuse COVID-19 vaccines (OR 20.60, 95% CI 14.20-30.30, p<0.001). Low levels of trust in the decision-making (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48, p=0.021) and truthfulness (OR 8.76, 95% CI 4.15-19.90, p<0.001) of the UK government were independently associated with higher odds of refusing COVID-19 vaccines. Compared to political centrists, conservatives and liberals were respectively more (OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.51-2.80, p<0.001) and less (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.41, p<0.001) likely to refuse offered vaccines. Those who were willing to be vaccinated cited both personal and public protection as reasons, with some alluding to having a sense of collective responsibility.
Conclusion Dominant narratives of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy are misconceived as primarily being driven by misinformation. Key indicators of UK vaccine acceptance include prior behaviours, transparency of the scientific process of vaccine development, mistrust in science and leadership and individual political views. Vaccine programmes should leverage the sense of altruism, citizenship and collective responsibility that motivated many participants to get vaccinated.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work received funding from the World Health Organization COVID-19 R&D Blueprint Roadmap. Grant number CERC.0039.
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:
This study was approved by the research ethics committees of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (ref: 17860) and World Health Organization (ref: CERC.0039B). The data were fully anonymous and the study team were unable to identify any respondents. The respondents provided informed consent at the start of the survey by means of ticking a box on the web-form. All questions in the survey were optional, meaning that participants could skip questions if they did not want to divulge specific data.
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
Data Availability
All data and scripts required to reproduce analysis will be available through LSHTM Data Compass (https://datacompass.lshtm.ac.uk/) after institutional review of our submission (Item 2337)
