Unraveling Attributes of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake in the U.S.: A Large Nationwide Study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are powerful tools to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy threatens these vaccines’ effectiveness. To address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and ensure equitable distribution, understanding the extent of and factors associated with vaccine acceptance and uptake is critical. We report the results of a large nationwide study conducted December 2020-May 2021 of 34,470 users from COVID-19-focused smartphone-based app How We Feel on their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Nineteen percent of respondents expressed vaccine hesitancy, the majority being undecided. Of those who were undecided or unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine, 86% reported they ultimately did receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We identified sociodemographic and behavioral factors that were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake, and we found several vulnerable groups at increased risk of COVID-19 burden, morbidity, and mortality were more likely to be vaccine hesitant and had lower rates of vaccination. Our findings highlight specific populations in which targeted efforts to develop education and outreach programs are needed to overcome vaccine hesitancy and improve equitable access, diversity, and inclusion in the national response to COVID-19.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.21254918: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The analysis of HWF data was also approved as exempt by Harvard University Longwood Medical Area Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Protocol no. IRB20-0514) and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard IRB (Protocol no. EX-1653).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all users and the data were collected in de-identified form.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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.21254918: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The analysis of HWF data was also approved as exempt by Harvard University Longwood Medical Area Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Protocol no. IRB20-0514) and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard IRB (Protocol no. EX-1653).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all users and the data were collected in de-identified form.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.
-
