Beliefs associated with Intentions of Non-Physician Healthcare Workers to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine in Ontario, Canada
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Achieving herd immunity of SARS-CoV-2 through vaccines will require a concerted effort to understand and address barriers to vaccine uptake. We conducted a web-based survey of non-physician HCWs, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, measuring intention to vaccinate, beliefs and sources of influence relating to the COVID-19 vaccines, and sociodemographic characteristics. Vaccination non-intent was associated with beliefs that vaccination was not required because of good health, lower confidence that the COVID-19 vaccine would protect their family and patients, and that getting vaccinated was a professional responsibility. Vaccination non-intent was strongly associated with mistrust about how fast the vaccines were developed and vaccine safety concerns. Communication directed at non-physician HCWs should be tailored by ethnic subgroups and settings to increase salience. Messaging should leverage emotions (e.g., pride, hope, fear) to capture interest, while addressing safety concerns and confirming the low risk of side effects in contrast to the substantial morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. Emergent data about reduced transmission post-vaccination will be helpful.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251936: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the Women’s College Hospital Research Ethics Board and reporting followed the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Re…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251936: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the Women’s College Hospital Research Ethics Board and reporting followed the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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: 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.
-
-