Demographic Differences in US Adult Intentions to Receive a Potential Coronavirus Vaccine and Implications for Ongoing Study

  1. Richard M. Carpiano

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Abstract Background: The coronavirus pandemic's public health and economic impacts have led to much hope in the US regarding the prospect of a safe, effective vaccine to either prevent infection or minimize symptoms and reduce mortality risk. However, recent US polls indicate a concerning level of hesitancy that will likely lead to suboptimal uptake if such a vaccine becomes available. This study investigated demographic differences regarding US adults' intent, uncertainty, and refusal to receive a potential coronavirus vaccine and specific reasons for intention to receive it. Methods and findings: Multivariable analysis of Associated Press (AP)-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research cross-sectional survey data collected in May 2020 from a US nationally representative panel of adults (n=1000). Respondents were asked if they would receive a coronavirus vaccine (yes, unsure, no). Among those answering yes, the specific reasons were: to protect self, family, and community; chronic health condition; and having a doctor who recommends vaccines. Multinomial logistic regression models indicated numerous subgroup differences between participants who indicating (1) uncertainty versus refusal, (2) intent versus refusal, and (3) intent versus uncertainty, with the highest number of significant differences observed in the third comparison. Overall, higher likelihood of intention to receive the vaccine versus uncertainty and refusal were mostly observed among respondents with a college education or greater, White, non-Hispanic racial-ethnic identity, ages 60 or older, and more liberal (versus conservative) ideology. Despite variation in endorsement across the five reasons for wanting to receive the vaccine, subgroup differences were fairly consistent across these specific reasons when comparing respondents endorsing such intentions versus, respectively, refusal and uncertainty in separate analyses. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the approval of a vaccine will potentially face problems with overall uptake due to uncertainty or refusal and contribute to creating significant demographic disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality risk. Ongoing assessment of such attitudes are needed as Phase III trials proceed, but the findings highlight need for measuring uncertainty and its underlying reasons, as well as multiple types of education and outreach efforts for those who are uncertain as well as avoidant.

Article activity feed

  1. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Elisa Sobo

    Review 2: "Demographic Differences in US Adult Intentions to Receive a Potential Coronavirus Vaccine and Implications for Ongoing Study"

    This study presents a reliable analysis of polling data, and draws attention to the population "unsure" of whether or not they will accept a coronavirus vaccine. Nevertheless, it leaves many questions unanswered that would be useful for policymakers going forward.

  2. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Paul Ward

    Review 1: "Demographic Differences in US Adult Intentions to Receive a Potential Coronavirus Vaccine and Implications for Ongoing Study"

    This study presents a reliable analysis of polling data, and draws attention to the population "unsure" of whether or not they will accept a coronavirus vaccine. Nevertheless, it leaves many questions unanswered that would be useful for policymakers going forward.

  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.07.20190058: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The data are from the May 14-18, 2020 Associated Press (AP)-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, publicly accessible at https://apnorc.org/projects/expectations-for-acovid-19-vaccine/ and determined by the University of California, Riverside Institutional Review Board to be exempt from review.
    RandomizationAdults ages 18 and older from the 50 states and the District of Columbia were randomly drawn from the panel and 1,056 completed the survey via the web and telephone, with interviews conducted in English and Spanish.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.07.20190058v1 on medRxiv