RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 COVID-19 vaccination acceptability in the UK at the start of the vaccination programme: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.06.21254973
DO 10.1101/2021.04.06.21254973
A1 Sherman, Susan M.
A1 Sim, Julius
A1 Cutts, Megan
A1 Dasch, Hannah
A1 Amlôt, Richard
A1 Rubin, G James
A1 Sevdalis, Nick
A1 Smith, Louise E.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/08/2021.04.06.21254973.abstract
AB Aim To investigate factors associated with intention to have the COVID-19 vaccination following initiation of the UK national vaccination programme.Methods 1,500 adults completed an online cross-sectional survey (13th–15th January 2021). Linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination in general. Participants’ main reasons for likely vaccination uptake/decline were also solicited.Results 73.5% of participants (95% CI 71.2%, 75.7%) reported being likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 17.3% were unsure (95% CI 15.4%, 19.3%), and 9.3% (95% CI 7.9%, 10.8%) reported being unlikely to be vaccinated. The full regression model explained 69.8% of the variance in intention. Intention was associated with having been/intending to be vaccinated for influenza last winter/this winter, and with stronger beliefs about social acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine; the need for vaccination; adequacy of information about the vaccine; and weaker beliefs that the vaccine is unsafe. Beliefs that only those at serious risk of illness should be vaccinated and that the vaccines are just a means for manufacturers to make money were negatively associated with vaccination intention.Conclusions Most participants reported being likely to get the COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and beliefs are a crucial factor underpinning vaccine intention. Continued engagement with the public with a focus on the importance and safety of vaccination is recommended.Competing Interest StatementNS is the director of the London Safety and Training Solutions Ltd, which offers training in patient safety, implementation solutions and human factors to healthcare organizations and the pharmaceutical industry. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementData collection was funded by a Keele University Faculty of Natural Sciences Research Development award to SS, JS and NS, and a Kings Together Rapid COVID-19 award granted jointly to LS, GJR, RA, NS, SS and JS. LS, RA and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, Kings College London and the University of East Anglia. NS research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS is a member of Kings Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and is funded by Kings Health Partners (Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and the Guys and St Thomas Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the charities, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for this study was granted by Keele University Research Ethics Committee (reference: PS-200129).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData are available through the Open Science Framework (OSF) site. A peer review link to the data is here: https://osf.io/ewch3/?view_only=8d25cf3247e240e28e61c9b8f5d04f01. On acceptance the data will be fully open. https://osf.io/ewch3/?view_only=8d25cf3247e240e28e61c9b8f5d04f01