Recent changes in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Early COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates suggest that up to one-third of HCWs may be vaccine-hesitant. However, it is unclear whether hesitancy among HCWs has improved with time and if there are temporal changes whether these differ by healthcare worker role.

Methods

In October 2020, a brief survey was sent to all participants in the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) Registry with a yes/no question regarding vaccination under emergency use authorization (EUA): “If an FDA emergency use-approved vaccine to prevent coronavirus/COVID-19 was available right now at no cost, would you agree to be vaccinated?” The poll was repeated in December 2020, with the same question sent to all registry participants. Willingness was defined as a “Yes” response, and hesitancy was defined as a “No” response. Participants were stratified into clinical care roles. Baseline demographics of survey respondents at each timepoint were compared using appropriate univariate statistics (chi-squared and t-tests). Analyses were descriptive, with frequencies and percentages reported for each category.

Results

Of 4882 HERO active registry participants during September 1 – October 31, 2020, 2070 (42.4%) completed the October survey, and n=1541 (31.6%) completed the December survey. 70.2% and 67.7% who were in clinical care roles, respectively. In October, 54.2% of HCWs in clinical roles said they would take an EUA-approved vaccine, which increased to 76.2% in December. The largest gain in vaccine willingness was observed among physicians, 64.0% of whom said they would take a vaccine in October, compared with 90.5% in December. Nurses were the least likely to report that they would take a vaccine in both October (46.6%) and December (66.9%). We saw no statistically significant differences in age, race/ethnicity, gender, or medical role between time points. When restricting to the 998 participants who participated at both time points, 69% were vaccine-willing at both time points; 15% were hesitant at both time points, 13% who were hesitant in October were willing in December; and 2.9% who were willing in October were hesitant in December.

Conclusions

In a set of cross-sectional surveys of vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers, willingness improved substantially over 2 calendar months during which the US had a presidential election and two vaccine manufacturers released top-line Phase 3 trial results. While improved willingness was observed in all role categories, nurses reported the most vaccine hesitancy at both time points.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.01.21252457: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Study oversight was provided by the Duke University Institutional Review Board, and all participants provided informed consent.
    Consent: Study oversight was provided by the Duke University Institutional Review Board, and all participants provided informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04342806RecruitingHealthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) Regi…


    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).


    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.