Predictors of uncertainty and unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine: An observational study of 22,139 fully vaccinated adults in the UK

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.17.21267941: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationThe study is not random and therefore is not representative of the UK population.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisA total of 32,096 participants met the first criterion, and of these, 26,619 also had data on initial COVID-19 vaccine intent, and 25,821 also met the third criterion of having had at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine at follow-up. 3,682 individuals were excluded due to missing data on other study variables, for example those who had selected “other/prefer not to say” in response to gender or “prefer not to say” on ethnicity or income, due to insufficient statistical power and an inability to create statistical weights for these individuals, leaving a total analytical sample of 22,139.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.