COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake in a national prospective cohort of essential workers

  1. Karen Lutrick
  2. Holly Groom
  3. Ashley L. Fowlkes
  4. Kimberly D Groover
  5. Manjusha Gaglani
  6. Patrick Rivers
  7. Allison L. Naleway
  8. Kimberly Nguyen
  9. Meghan Herring
  10. Kayan Dunnigan
  11. Andrew Phillips
  12. Joel Parker
  13. Julie Mayo Lamberte
  14. Khaila Prather
  15. Matthew S. Thiese
  16. Zoe Baccam
  17. Harmony Tyner
  18. Sarang Yoon

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.vaccine.2021.11.094
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.20.21265288: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: All protocols were reviewed and approved by each site’s Institutional Review Boards; study participants provided informed consent for all study activities.
    Consent: All protocols were reviewed and approved by each site’s Institutional Review Boards; study participants provided informed consent for all study activities.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Participants were categorized as having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to Follow-up survey 1 if they reported detection by antibody, antigen, or RT-PCR assay prior to enrollment, or if SARS-CoV-2 was detected by RT-PCR or an antibody test during the study.
    antigen,
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Study Design & Population: The HEROES-RECOVER studies represent a national network of prospective cohorts, including Arizona Healthcare, Emergency Response and Other Essential Workers Surveillance Study (HEROES) and Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER) funded by the CDC with sites in Phoenix, Tucson, and other areas in Arizona; Miami, Florida; Duluth, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; Temple, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Details of the protocols of the studies have been previously published.
    Arizona Healthcare
    suggested: None
    Phoenix
    suggested: (Phoenix, RRID:SCR_003163)
    Vaccination was verified by participant-provided vaccine cards, electronic medical records, or State Immunization Information Systems.
    State Immunization Information Systems
    suggested: None
    All statistical analyses were completed using R (version 4.0.4; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) and SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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: This study is subject to several limitations. First, the follow-up surveys were spread out over about six weeks due to site’s individual IRB timelines. As the level of information available evolved quickly during the study period, participants at sites where the follow-up surveys were administered later may have had access to a meaningfully different amount, or quality, of information. Secondly, all KAPs are self-reported and there may be a disconnect between perceived knowledge and actual level of knowledge. Next, while we are confident KAPs are successfully captured in our cohorts at the time of administration, due to the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine, KAPs will likely continue to change and evolve past this analysis period. Finally, the mechanism prompting change in KAPs is not captured, so it is difficult to know why certain KAPs changed as they did over time, e.g., the change in certain KAPs between the two follow-up surveys may have been due to increased numbers of participants receiving the vaccine with few documented serious adverse event rates, increased access to information and disease/vaccine literacy, changes in national and local COVID-19 incidence. The demographic characteristics of the group that answered Follow-up 2 different slightly from those that completed Follow-up 1: there were more female participants (64% vs 60%), they were older (45% 40-65 years of age compared to 36%), and there were higher percentages of FW (36% vs 20%) and lower per...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.20.21265288v1 on medRxiv