Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study

  1. Katherine Woolf
  2. I Chris McManus
  3. Christopher A Martin
  4. Laura B Nellums
  5. Anna L Guyatt
  6. Carl Melbourne
  7. Luke Bryant
  8. Mayuri Gogoi
  9. Fatimah Wobi
  10. Amani Al-Oraibi
  11. Osama Hassan
  12. Amit Gupta
  13. Catherine John
  14. Martin D Tobin
  15. Sue Carr
  16. Sandra Simpson
  17. Bindu Gregary
  18. Avinash Aujayeb
  19. Stephen Zingwe
  20. Rubina Reza
  21. Laura J Gray
  22. Kamlesh Khunti
  23. Manish Pareek

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.lanepe.2021.100180
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.26.21255788v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.26.21255788: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Qualitative data and analysis: Ethical approval: Both studies were approved by the Health Research Authority (Brighton and Sussex Research Ethics Committee; ethics reference: 20/HRA/4718).
    Consent: All participants gave written informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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:
    Despite these strengths, our study also has a number of limitations including the potential for self-selection bias and the low number of ancillary staff in the sample. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the vaccination programme, questions relating to vaccination were changed midway through the baseline questionnaire rollout which could have impacted on outcome, although we have controlled for questionnaire version in the multivariable analysis. The relevant sections of the baseline questionnaire were not designed to capture actual vaccine uptake as an outcome but rather attitudes towards vaccination and thus we cannot determine whether access to vaccination could be a driver in vaccine hesitancy in our sample, however this will be captured in follow-up questionnaires. In summary, we have identified key predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in HCWs and demonstrate clear ethnic differences in hesitancy levels. Importantly, we have established drivers behind vaccine hesitancy in HCWs, which include belief in COVID-19 conspiracies and mistrust (of vaccines in general, in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines specifically, in healthcare systems and research) and suggest that these factors may account for some of the observed ethnic differences in hesitancy. Strategies to improve vaccine confidence are urgently required to prevent these ethnic disparities from widening. Such strategies may include building trust and involvement/engagement of ethnic minority HCWs in the vaccination rollout,...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    ISRCTN11811602NANA

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.26.21255788v1 on medRxiv