Increasing but inadequate intention to receive Covid-19 vaccination over the first 50 days of impact of the more infectious variant and roll-out of vaccination in UK: indicators for public health messaging

  1. Patrik Bachtiger
  2. Alexander Adamson
  3. William A Maclean
  4. Jennifer K Quint
  5. Nicholas S Peters

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

To inform critical public health messaging by determining how changes in Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, attitudes to the priorities for administration, the emergence of new variants and availability of vaccines may affect the trajectory and achievement of herd immunity.

Methods

>9,000 respondents in an ongoing cross-sectional participatory longitudinal epidemiology study (LoC-19, n=18,581) completed a questionnaire within their personal electronic health record in the week reporting first effective Covid-19 vaccines, and then again after widespread publicity of the increased transmissibility of a new variant (November 13th and December 31st 2020 respectively). Questions covered willingness to receive Covid-19 vaccination and attitudes to prioritisation. Descriptive statistics, unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and natural language processing of free-text responses are reported, and how changes over the first 50 days of both vaccination roll-out and new-variant impact modelling of anticipated transmission rates and the likelihood and time to herd immunity.

Findings

Compared with the week reporting the first efficacious vaccine there was a 15% increase in acceptance of Covid-19 vaccination, attributable in one third to the impact of the new variant, with 75% of respondents “shielding” – staying at home and not leaving unless essential – regardless of health status or tier rules. 12.5% of respondents plan to change their behaviour two weeks after completing vaccination compared with 45% intending to do so only when cases have reduced to a low level. Despite the increase from 71% to 86% over this critical 50-day period, modelling of planned uptake of vaccination remains below that required for rapid effective herd immunity – now estimated to be 90 percent in the presence of a new variant escalating R 0 to levels requiring further lockdowns. To inform the public messaging essential therefore to improve uptake, age and female gender were, respectively, strongly positively and negatively associated with wanting a vaccine. 22.7% disagreed with the prioritisation list, though 70.3% were against being able to expedite vaccination through payment. Teachers (988, 12.6%) and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) (837, 10.7%) groups were most cited by respondents for prioritisation.

Interpretation

In this sample, the growing impact of personal choice among the increasingly informed public highlights a decrease in Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy over time, with news of a new variant motivating increased willingness for vaccination but at levels below what may be required for effective herd immunity. We identify public preferences for next-in-line priorities, headed by teachers and BAME groups, consideration of which will help build trust and community engagement critical for maximising compliance with not only the vaccination programme but also all other public health measures.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.30.21250083: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Study participants: The Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the Covid-19 Pandemic (LoC-19) study is an ongoing participatory epidemiology study with registrants (n = 18,581) receiving weekly questionnaires to complete within their personal electronic health record, the Care Information Exchange (CIE) of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (ICHNT).
    College Healthcare
    suggested: None
    and reported alongside machine learning analysis (natural language processing in Python version 3.7) of free-text responses.
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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:
    The limitations of this study include that although the LoC-19 cohort of NHS patients engaging with questionnaires is large, it is unlikely to be representative of the whole UK population, limiting the generalisability of our findings. Nonetheless, smaller studies have also reported between 65-85%12,13 Covid-19 vaccine acceptance rates. Importantly, our sample is unique in comprising NHS patients and therefore incorporating a spectrum of individuals most at risk from Covid-19 and therefore a demographic mix of the most important group to study for informing Covid-19 vaccine health policy.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.30.21250083v1 on medRxiv