‘I don't want my son to be part of a giant experiment’: public attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in children

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.28.21261252: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical approval for the study was granted by Swansea University’s School of Management and College for Human and Health Sciences research ethics committees and all participants gave informed consent and had their data anonymized.
    Consent: Ethical approval for the study was granted by Swansea University’s School of Management and College for Human and Health Sciences research ethics committees and all participants gave informed consent and had their data anonymized.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    14 Coding was performed using NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS).
    NVivo
    suggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)

    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 of this study: Strengths and limitations of the overall study have been discussed in previous publications.11,12 As with all qualitative studies, the generalizability of the findings is limited. As such, the strength of the study lies in its ability to reveal the complexity of the reasoning behind the extent to which people are supportive of COVID-19 vaccines in children, rather than in deriving proportions or gauging public sentiment overall. Additionally, due to the rapid nature of the call for participation from the participant pool, the sample size was slightly smaller than in previous rounds of data collection – although the total sample was deemed sufficient for the purposes of the analysis.

    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.