Determining the cutoff points of the 5C scale for assessment of COVID-19 vaccines psychological antecedents among the Arab population: A multinational study

  1. Ramy Mohamed Ghazy
  2. Samar Abd ElHafeez
  3. Ramy Shaaban
  4. Iffat Elbarazi
  5. Khalid A. Kheirallah
  6. Marwa Shawky Abdou
  7. Ahmed Ramadan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

One of the newly faced challenges during the COVID-19 is vaccine hesitancy (VH). The validated 5C scale, that assesses five psychological antecedents of vaccination, could be effective in exploring COVID-19 VH. This study aimed to determine a statistically valid cutoff points for the 5C sub-scales among the Arab population.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 446 subjects from three Arab countries (Egypt, United Arab Emirates UAE, and Jordan). Information regarding sociodemographics, clinical history, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and 5C scale were collected online. The 5C scores were analyzed to define the cutoff points using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and to verify the capability of the questionnaire to differentiate whether responders are hesitant or non-hesitant to accept vaccination. ROC curve analysis was conducted setting for previous vaccine administration as a response, with the predictors being the main five domains of the 5C questionnaire. The mean score of each sub-scale was compared with COVID-19 vaccine intake

Results

The mean age of the studied population was 37±11, 42.9% were males, 44.8% from Egypt, 21.1% from Jordan, and 33.6% from UAE. Statistically significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants, respectively, weredetetd in the median score of confidence [6.0(1.3) versus 4.7(2.0)], complacency [(2.7(2.0) versus 3.0(2.0), constraints [1.7(1.7) versus 3.7(2.3)], and collective responsibility [6.7(1.7) versus 5.7(1.7)]. The area under the curve of the five scales was 0.72, 0.60, 0.76, 0.66, 0.66 for confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility at cutoff values of 5.7, 4.7, 6.0, 6.3, and 6.2, respectively.

Conclusion

the Arabic validated version of the 5C scale has a good discriminatory power to predict COVID-19 vaccines antecedent.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.27.21254461: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: It will be identified using the Youden index Ethical consideration: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine-Alexandria University/ Egypt (IRB No:00012098).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Based on the assumptions of AUC =0.5 for the null hypothesis and AUC=0.6 for the alternative hypothesis, allocation ratio between vaccinated and non-vaccinated population was estimated to be 1 to 2, power= 0.80, and alpha error= 0.05, the minimum sample size required was estimated at 219 participants using MedCalc software application (version 19.6.3).
    MedCalc
    suggested: (MedCalc, RRID:SCR_015044)

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.27.21254461v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1177/21501327211018568