Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a population-based survey in Canada

  1. Gina S. Ogilvie
  2. Shanlea Gordon
  3. Laurie W. Smith
  4. Arianne Albert
  5. C. Sarai Racey
  6. Amy Booth
  7. Anna Gottschlich
  8. David Goldfarb
  9. Melanie C.M. Murray
  10. Liisa A.M. Galea
  11. Angela Kaida
  12. Lori A. Brotto
  13. Manish Sadarangani

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The success of any COVID-19 vaccine program ultimately depends on high vaccine uptake. This study determined overall intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and identified factors that predict intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in Canada, specifically in key priority groups identified by the American Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for early immunization.

Methods

Individuals from research cohorts from the general population of British Columbia aged 25-69 were invited complete an online survey based on validated scales and theoretical frameworks to explore intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Two multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to determine factors associated with intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Results

Of 4,948 respondents, 79.8% intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In multivariable modeling, respondents who intended to receive the vaccine had higher vaccine attitudinal scores (p <0.001), reported greater influence of direct social norms (p = 0.001), and indirect social norms, including their family physician (p = 0.024), and Provincial Health Officer (p = 0.011). Older individuals (>60 years) were more likely to intend to receive the vaccine, while females (95%CI 0.57,0.93), those with less than high school education (95%CI 0.5,0.76), those who self-identified as non-white (95%CI 0.60,0.92), self-identified as Indigenous (95%CI 0.36,0.84) and essential non-health care workers (95%CI 0.59,0.86) had lower adjusted odds of intending to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusions

To optimize vaccine coverage, public health should focus on key messages around vaccine safety and benefit, and leverage trusted practitioners for messaging. As certain key populations identified by NACI and ACIP for early immunization report a lower intention to vaccinate, there is a need for in-depth education and support for these communities to ensure optimal uptake.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251007v2 on medRxiv
  2. Version published to 10.1186/s12889-021-11098-9
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251007: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval was received from The University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (H20-01421).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisParticipant disposition is defined as: respondents (number of complete and partial surveys), ineligible (those who did not meet the eligibility criteria), invitation returned undelivered (number of emails bounced back), explicit refusals (those who replied that they did not want to participate), implicit refusals (those who visited the survey URL but failed to complete any survey items), and nothing ever returned (those who did not respond to the survey invites).22 With a sample size of 4,500, we had 80% power to detect +/- 1.34% 95%CI around an estimated overall vaccine acceptance rate of 70%.
    Sex as a biological variableA descriptive analysis of male versus female respondents was completed for the WHO VHS scale and the TPB framework.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The overall survey was assessed for face validity and comprehension, pilot tested, and the final version was implemented using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture).
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    Limitations: This study included a population of individuals who were recruited from large health research cohorts, and has a higher percentage of respondents who identified as female, white, with more than high school education, and were more likely to live in the southern part of the province compared to the general population of BC.30 While we had a lower than expected response rate, there was no observed differences in age distribution between the responders and non-responders.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251007v1 on medRxiv