Intention to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccine by HIV Status Among a Population-Based Sample of Women and Gender Diverse Individuals in British Columbia, Canada

  1. Angela Kaida
  2. Lori A. Brotto
  3. Melanie C. M. Murray
  4. Hélène C. F. Côté
  5. Arianne Y. Albert
  6. Valerie Nicholson
  7. Rebecca Gormley
  8. Shanlea Gordon
  9. Amy Booth
  10. Laurie W. Smith
  11. Ally Baaske
  12. Liisa A. M. Galea
  13. Manish Sadarangani
  14. Gina S. Ogilvie

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s10461-022-03577-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262249: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Ethical Considerations: All participants provided voluntary informed consent at enrollment.
    IRB: Ethical approval was received from The University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (H20-01421).
    Sex as a biological variableInclusion and exclusion criteria: Analyses were restricted to self-identified women and gender diverse participants either living with or not living with HIV.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: The questionnaire was developed by experts in sex-and-gender based analysis, vaccine intention, Theory of Planned Behavior, social determinants of health, economics, mental health, and sexual and reproductive health, using validated scales when available.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The questionnaire was assessed for face validity and comprehension, pilot tested, revised, and the final version was implemented using REDCap.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Although the number of participants LWH was small, the proportion of those LWH in this sample was higher than expected through general population-based recruitment strategies (46), enabling comparisons with the general population. We did not have sufficient sample size to conduct separate analyses for women and gender diverse individuals LWH. However, in bivariable analyses we did not observe significant differences in vaccine intention by gender, which further informed our decision to include both women and gender diverse individuals in analyses. The study sample was drawn from individuals who were sufficiently concerned about COVID-19, reasonably trusting of scientific research, and with sufficient resources (technological, time) to complete the online survey. Thus, our findings may over-estimate the true prevalence of vaccine intention.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262249v1 on medRxiv