COVID-19 Vaccine’s Gender Paradox
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Women die less than men of COVID-19, but have been more concerned about its health consequences and more compliant with the public health rules imposed during the pandemic. Since return to normal life depends on vaccination, but delays in acceptance or outright refusals of vaccination are already evident, we investigate gender differences in attitudes and expected behaviors regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using original data from a survey conducted in December 2020 in ten developed countries (N=13,326), we discover a COVID-19 Vaccine’s gender paradox . Being more concerned about COVID-19 and more likely to believe to be infected and consequently to become seriously ill, women could be expected to be more supportive of vaccination than men. Instead, our findings show that women agree less than men to be vaccinated and to make vaccination compulsory. Our evidence suggests that their vaccine hesitance is partly due skepticism, since women are less likely to believe that vaccination is the only solution to COVID-19 and more likely to believe that COVID-19 was created by large corporations. Using a survey experiment performed in these ten countries, we show that information provision on the role of vaccination to become immune to COVID-19 is effective in reducing vaccine hesitance.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254380: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources This survey is part of the REPEAT project (REpresentations, PErceptions and ATtitudes on the COVID-19), which collects information on perceptions and individual behavior related to COVID-19 and to the public health measures discussed (or adopted) to limit the diffusion of the virus. REPEATsuggested: (ProRepeat, RRID:SCR_006113)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
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: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254380: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources This survey is part of the REPEAT project (REpresentations, PErceptions and ATtitudes on the COVID-19), which collects information on perceptions and individual behavior related to COVID-19 and to the public health measures discussed (or adopted) to limit the diffusion of the virus. REPEATsuggested: (ProRepeat, RRID:SCR_006113)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
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.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
