Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination uptake in an elderly sample in Poland
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Backgrounds
This research represents an investigation into potential predictors for the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccination in Poland, following the instigation of policies to encourage the over-seventies to be vaccinated.
Methods
Individuals participated in cross-sectional structured interviews. 1427 respondents were questioned for determining vaccination uptake, revealing attitudes regarding vaccination, where information was sourced from, health status and behavior, demographics and socio-economic profiles.
Results
Selected predictors for acceptance of the vaccination were: being talked through the importance of the vaccination and potential side-effects by a medical professional; sharing living space with others; having a high ranking occupation; suffering from chronic illnesses; being able to access medical services by driving or walking rather than using public transport or relying on others. Those who opted not to be vaccinated most frequently justify their decision by saying that they were concerned about the efficacy of the vaccine or that they were worried about side-effects.
Conclusions
It appears that the current nationwide campaign has successfully raised awareness regarding the vaccine, but this research indicates that a more information-based campaign, focusing on evidence of the vaccine’s efficacy and the non-serious nature of all side-effects, could lead to improved uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.21.21254047: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations and conclusion: This research has the limitation that the study cohort may not be entirely representative of the elderly population as a whole. Recruitment occurred in public places, and so the research cohort may …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.21.21254047: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations and conclusion: This research has the limitation that the study cohort may not be entirely representative of the elderly population as a whole. Recruitment occurred in public places, and so the research cohort may have greater levels of activity in comparison to the wider elderly population. This group (those who were out in public) are worth researching as they have a greater likelihood of being in contact with coronavirus due to their increased outdoors activity, but as participants were most likely to be active elderly persons the research findings are not necessarily applicable to the elderly population as a whole. This undermines our ability to make generalisations from our sample to the population we were studying. Moreover, participants from our study might stay home most of time during the pandemic with limited social interactions. This means that these results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to the general elderly population. Third, the cross-sectional nature of this investigation precludes us from drawing causal inferences. Furthermore, the cross-sectional survey design necessarily represents a snapshot in time, rather than the evolving landscape of the public’s attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination. All the information obtained was self-reported and reporting bias always exists. Although the data was collected from the heterogenous group, we targeted individuals who are willing to participate and give their answers. The individual’s opinion also can b...
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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
