COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey

  1. Susan M. Sherman
  2. Louise E. Smith
  3. Julius Sim
  4. Richard Amlôt
  5. Megan Cutts
  6. Hannah Dasch
  7. G James Rubin
  8. Nick Sevdalis

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 10.1080/21645515.2020.1846397
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174045: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Study materials: Full survey materials are available online.(13) Items were based on previous literature.(14-18) Ethics: Ethical approval for this study was granted by Keele University’s Research Ethics Committee (reference: PS-200129).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analyses were conducted in SPSS 26.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has limitations. First, although we used a demographically representative sample of the UK population, we cannot be sure how representative survey respondents are of the views and behaviours of the general population.(26, 27) However, we assume that associations between variables follow the same pattern as those in the general population.(28) Second, we cannot infer causality due to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Third, we investigated vaccination intention. Actual vaccination uptake is likely to be lower. (21) Given the theoretical importance of intention in theories of uptake of health behaviours,(5, 6) it is likely that factors associated with vaccination intention in this study will also influence vaccination uptake. Fourth, due to unclear evidence of the role of children in transmission of COVID-19 in the UK (12) and space constraints in the survey, we chose not to investigate intention to vaccinate one’s child for COVID-19. High levels of uptake of a COVID-19 vaccination when one becomes available will be necessary in order for the UK government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy to be fulfilled and for life to return to ‘normal’. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first methodologically rigorous study investigating intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination in a demographically-representative sample of the UK population. While there is still much uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and vaccination, results from this study provide useful insights tha...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174045v1 on medRxiv