A “step too far” or “perfect sense”? A qualitative study of British adults’ views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.07.22270458: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Potential participants (n=136) were emailed an information sheet and consent form by NatCen and followed-up by email/telephone to confirm participation, record consent (email or verbally) and arrange an interview. Sex as a biological variable The achieved sample comprised 22 males and 28 females aged 18-70+, evenly distributed across (Scottish) Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. Randomization The survey was administered to the probability-based NatCen Panel [29], recruited from the 2018, 2019, and 2020 waves of the British Social Attitudes survey, with respondents randomly selected from England, Wales and Scotland. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.07.22270458: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Potential participants (n=136) were emailed an information sheet and consent form by NatCen and followed-up by email/telephone to confirm participation, record consent (email or verbally) and arrange an interview. Sex as a biological variable The achieved sample comprised 22 males and 28 females aged 18-70+, evenly distributed across (Scottish) Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. Randomization The survey was administered to the probability-based NatCen Panel [29], recruited from the 2018, 2019, and 2020 waves of the British Social Attitudes survey, with respondents randomly selected from England, Wales and Scotland. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:Our study has some limitations. As with all qualitative research, relatively small sample size limits the ability to draw comparisons between population sub-groups. However, our study did illuminate the factors that shaped understanding and support for mandatory vaccination, including the use of language within a key priority group, namely adults who had previously expressed hesitancy towards vaccination. Similarly, our study explored views within Great Britain and may not translate to other countries and socio-political contexts. Use of telephone interviews restricted our ability to monitor visual cues such as facial expression and body language. However, they offered participants greater anonymity (compared with face-to-face methods), which can reduce social desirability bias [39]. Such effects are likely to be more prevalent when discussing potentially sensitive topics such as vaccination behaviour and mandatory vaccination, and could explain some participants’ greater preparedness to accept vaccination mandates for occupational groups to which they did not belong. Our data were collected in two geographical regions (the whole of GB and Scotland specifically), several weeks apart. It is possible that the views of participants in the different UK nations may have been influenced by the timing of interviews and the different political and media environments. However, the same topic guide and interview sequence were used with both samples, and data were collected by the same ...
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.
-