Pre-pandemic cognitive function and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: cohort study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.16.21253634: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The University of Essex Ethics Committee gave approval for data collection in the COVID-orientated surveys (ETH1920-1271); no further ethical permissions were required for the present analyses of anonymised data. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:Study strengths and …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.16.21253634: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The University of Essex Ethics Committee gave approval for data collection in the COVID-orientated surveys (ETH1920-1271); no further ethical permissions were required for the present analyses of anonymised data. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:Study strengths and weaknesses: While the present study has its strengths, including its size, national representativeness, and timing, there are also some weaknesses. First, we used vaccine intentionality as an indicator vaccine uptake but the correlation is imperfect. In a small scale longitudinal study conducted during the period of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Hong Kong, less than 10% of people who expressed a commitment to being inoculated reported that they had received a vaccination two months later.50 Elsewhere, in a US adult population at high risk of seasonal influenza, around half of those intending to be vaccinated had received the inoculation within the following 5 months.51 Second, there was inevitably some loss to follow-up (figure 1). While this attrition may have impacted upon the estimation of the prevalence vaccine hesitancy which is likely to be lower in our select sample relative to the general population,52 it is unlikely to have influenced our estimation of its relationship with cognitive function. Thus, in other contexts, we have shown that highly select cohorts reveal very similar risk factor–disease associations to those seen in studies with conventionally high response.53 In conclusion, people with lower scores on standard tests of cognitive function reported being less willing to take up the future offer of vaccination for COVID-19. It is possible that erroneous social media news reports have complicated decision-making. Special efforts should be made...
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.
-
-