A “step too far” or “perfect sense”? A qualitative study of British adults’ views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports

  1. Martine Stead
  2. Allison Ford
  3. Douglas Eadie
  4. Hannah Biggs
  5. Claire Elliott
  6. Michael Ussher
  7. Helen Bedford
  8. Kathryn Angus
  9. Kate Hunt
  10. Anne Marie MacKintosh
  11. Curtis Jessop
  12. Andy MacGregor

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.072
  2. ScreenIT

    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

    EthicsConsent: 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 variableThe achieved sample comprised 22 males and 28 females aged 18-70+, evenly distributed across (Scottish) Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles.
    RandomizationThe 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.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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 10.1101/2022.02.07.22270458v1 on medRxiv