PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Smith, Louise E.
AU  - Sim, Julius
AU  - Cutts, Megan
AU  - Dasch, Hannah
AU  - Amlôt, Richard
AU  - Sevdalis, Nick
AU  - Rubin, G James
AU  - Sherman, Susan M.
TI  - Psychosocial factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK: a prospective cohort study (CoVAccS – wave 3)
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.25.22272954
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.25.22272954
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/30/2022.03.25.22272954.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/30/2022.03.25.22272954.full
AB  - Background We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time.Methods Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76·5%) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance.Findings At T2, 90·0% (95% CI 88·2%-91·7%) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2·2% (95% CI 1·3%-3·0%) had received one dose, and 7·4% (95% CI 5·9%-8·9%) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p<0.001), than T1. Perceived safety and adequacy of vaccine information were higher (p<0.001).Interpretation Targeting modifiable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination may increase uptake.Funding Data collection was funded by a Keele University Faculty of Natural Sciences Research Development award and a King’s COVID Appeal Fund award.Evidence before this study COVID-19 vaccination intention was high at the start of the vaccine rollout in the UK. Research suggests that psychosocial factors are associated with vaccine uptake. However, most research on uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine has investigated factors associated with vaccination intention, and used a cross-sectional design.Added value of this study We used a prospective cohort study (T1 conducted in January 2021, the start of the UK vaccine rollout; T2 conducted in October 2021, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses) to investigate factors associated with subsequent COVID-19 vaccination. Qualitative data on the main supporting reasons for future vaccination intentions in those partially or not vaccinated were analysed using content analysis. Changes in vaccine beliefs and attitudes (generally and COVID-19 specific) were also analysed.Implications of all the available evidence In our sample, more people reported having been vaccinated than had previously reported intending to be vaccinated. Vaccine uptake was strongly associated with previous vaccination intention, perceived social norms of vaccination, and greater perceived necessity and safety of vaccination. Those who had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine reported being likely to complete the schedule, whereas those who had not received a vaccine reported being unlikely to receive a vaccine.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. At the time of writing GJR is acting as an expert witness in an unrelated case involving Bayer PLC, supported by LS. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. LS, RA and GJR are members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies or its subgroups.Funding StatementData collection was funded by a Keele University Faculty of Natural Sciences Research Development award to SMS, JS and NS, and a Kings COVID Appeal Fund award granted jointly to LS, GJR, RA, NS, SMS 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 the UK Health Security Agency, King's College London and the University of East Anglia. NS's research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS is a member of King's Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and is funded by King's Health Partners (Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and the Guy's and St Thomas' Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the charities, UK Health Security Agency 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:Keele University's Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for this study (reference: PS-200129).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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 online at https://osf.io/tehg8/. https://osf.io/tehg8/