COVID-19 vaccine perceptions in New York State's intellectual and developmental disabilities community

  1. Suzannah Iadarola
  2. Joanne F. Siegel
  3. Qi Gao
  4. Kathleen McGrath
  5. Karen A. Bonuck

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101178
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253425: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Brief blurbs in each language included a link to the survey in REDCap.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)
    Maps: A 2018 county-level shapefile and tabular datasets containing zip codes with county Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) code was downloaded from the United States Census Bureau and imported into ArcMap.
    ArcMap
    suggested: None

    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:
    The project also had several limitations. First, as a convenience sample, findings may not be representative of New York’s disability community by diagnosis or living situation. However, results may reflect biases in who chose to respond. Second, the survey items did not include specifiers for disability category or workplace setting (e.g., residential versus community). Comparisons across these subgroups may have yielded interesting findings, and future work on vaccine perceptions within the disability community should consider including these identifiers. Third, as the survey did not specify a definition of support, it is unclear if respondents who indicated that that did not need support were familiar with actual methods of obtaining an appointment, (e.g., computer registration or telephone access) and then traveling alone to a designated and possibly unfamiliar vaccine site. Fourth, data were analyzed descriptively, rather than through predictive models. The survey was developed primarily to inform messaging for community vaccine confidence campaigns; as such, we did not have a priori hypotheses or specific research questions identified. However, group differences emerged from the dataset suggest that more rigorous evaluation of characteristics that influence vaccine hesitancy would be warranted. Finally, findings were based solely upon self-report of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and are not necessarily indicative of actual vaccination behavior. In addition, ...

    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.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253425v1 on medRxiv