Pre-pandemic mental and physical health as predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: evidence from a UK-wide cohort study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.27.21256185: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The University of Essex Ethics Committee gave approval for the COVID-orientated surveys (ETH1920-1271); no further ethical permissions were required for the present analyses of anonymised data. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. 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:Study strengths and weaknesses: Whereas the present study has its …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.27.21256185: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The University of Essex Ethics Committee gave approval for the COVID-orientated surveys (ETH1920-1271); no further ethical permissions were required for the present analyses of anonymised data. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. 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:Study strengths and weaknesses: Whereas the present study has its strengths, including its size, national representativeness, and timing, there are also some weaknesses. First, we used vaccine intentionality as an indicator vaccine uptake but the correlation between the two is imperfect. In a small-scale longitudinal study conducted during the period of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Hong Kong, less than 10% of people who expressed a commitment to being inoculated reported that they had received a vaccination two months later.45 Elsewhere, in a US adult population at high risk of seasonal influenza, around half of those intending to be vaccinated had received the inoculation within the following 5 months.46 Second, there was inevitably some loss to follow-up (figure 1). Whereas this attrition might have impacted upon the estimation of the prevalence vaccine hesitancy, which is likely to be lower in our select sample relative to the general population,47 it is unlikely to have influenced our estimation of its relationship with mental and physical health. Thus, in other contexts, we have shown that highly-selected cohorts reveal very similar risk factor–outcome associations to those seen in studies with conventionally high response.48 In conclusion, we found that some somatic conditions but not mental health problems were related to a lower likelihood of being vaccine hesitant against COVID-19.
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.
-
