Abstract
Objectives The present study explored public’s willingness to use COVID-19 immunity certificates across six different domestic scenarios.
Design Cross-sectional online survey.
Setting UK representative survey conducted on the 3rd of August 2021.
Participants 534 UK residents over 18 years old.
Interventions Participants replied to the same set of questions.
Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure was willingness to use immunity certificates across three different domestic settings (1. Visiting the GP for a non-urgent health issue, 2. Dining in a restaurant, and 3. Attending a performance in a theatre). For each setting two options, one prioritising convenience (option A) and the other privacy (option B), were offered. Our secondary outcome measures were computed indices from items adapted from the Health Belief Model; Attitudes towards sharing immunity status with service providers; Prior to COVID-19 lifestyle. In addition, we recorded data about respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics.
Results Respondents were more willing to use immunity certificates that prioritised convenience, rather than privacy, when visiting their GP (92%). However, privacy was more favorable (84%) in the other two settings (dining in a restaurant and going to a theatre) compared to convenience (39%). Personal beliefs about COVID-19 and immunity certificates were associated with variations in willingness to use these across all scenarios. No variations were observed across socio-demographics and lifestyle.
Conclusions The findings of this survey suggest that there is not one size fits all solution for designing immunity certificates. Immunity certificates are complex socio-technical systems, any attempt to implement these for domestic use should be tailored to different settings and user needs. The design of certification services requires a more evidence-based approach and further research is needed to understand how different settings, design elements (like convenience or privacy) and personal beliefs about the pandemic should inform their design.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This study presents unique knowledge about the public’s willingness to use immunity certificates for domestic purposes where there is very little published research at the moment.
The study reports knowledge about the interaction between individual characteristics, domestic settings, and types of immunity certificate design on willingness to use these certificates.
UK nationally representative sample for age, gender, and ethnic background, but limited to people who have the means and capacity to use digital technologies (survey administered using Prolific.co).
We present evidence-based recommendations for Public Health services and policy makers about the use of immunity certificates in different domestic settings.
Since, as to the writing of this paper, COVID-19 certification has not been mandated in the UK, the scenarios used in the survey were hypothetical.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
IMMUNE or Immunity Passport Service Design is a project funded by the AHRC/UKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response (Ref. AH/W000288/1)
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:
: Ethics approval was obtained from the College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Brunel University London (Ref. 31705-A-Jul/2021- 33586-1
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.
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
This revised version includes the addition of covid-19 to the title, correction of typos in the abstract and in the author names. We also made minor changes for clarity of explanation in the last part of section 2.2.1.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://osf.io/jubv6/
