Intention to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial and to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France during the pandemic

  1. Maëlle Detoc
  2. Sébastien Bruel
  3. Paul Frappe
  4. Bernard Tardy
  5. Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers
  6. Amandine Gagneux-Brunon

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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.23.20076513: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The protocol complied with the data privacy laws of the National Commission for Informatics and Civil Liberties and was approved by the institutional review board with the number IRBN422020/CHUSTE.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    One limitation of our work may be the use of social media to recruit study participants. Social media users who use these medias as health information sources are more prone to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza in the United States of America [14]. Furthermore, a great number of healthcare workers (43.6 % of the responders) answered the survey and we observed that healthcare workers were more prone to get vaccinated or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial independently of the perceived risk to get contaminated. However, vaccine hesitancy also affects healthcare workers [15–17]. In our study sample, vaccine hesitancy affects 29.3 % of the healthcare workers and 39.9 % of the non-healthcare workers. Our sample is not completely representative of the French general population. In addition, we did not precise in the survey, the type of clinical trials, and intention to participate may change between early and later phases clinical trials [7]. In conclusion, during the pandemics, around 75 % of the French people would agree to get vaccinated. Due to the burden of the disease, and the potential natural immunity, it may well be possible that this proportion would be enough to obtain a herd effect [18]. Vaccine hesitancy is the major barrier to implement vaccines campaign even in a context of a pandemic. Around fifty percent will agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, we can hope that vaccine trials would not be stopped because of recruitment difficu...

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.041
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.23.20076513: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementThe protocol complied with the data privacy laws of the National Commission for Informatics and Civil Liberties and was approved by the institutional review board with the number IRBN422020/CHUSTE .Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variableWomen accounted for 67.4 % of the responders .

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0 .
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.23.20076513v1 on medRxiv