Public attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To explore public attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines in the UK, focused on intentions and decisions around taking vaccines, views on ‘vaccine passports’, and experiences and perspectives on post-vaccination behavior.
DESIGN
Qualitative study consisting of 6 online focus groups conducted between 15 th March – 22 nd April 2021.
SETTING
Online video conferencing
PARTICIPANTS
29 adult UK-based participants
RESULTS
Three main groups regarding participants’ decision or intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine were identified: (1) Accepters, (2) Delayers and (3) Refusers. Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need more information and delay until vaccine was “required” in the future. Three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six barriers (Preference for “natural immunity”; Concerns over possible side effects; Distrust in government; Perceived lack of information; Conspiracy theories; “Covid echo chambers”) to vaccine uptake were identified. For some delayers, vaccine passports were perceived to be a reason why they would get vaccinated in the future. However, vaccine passports were controversial, and were framed in three main ways: as “a necessary evil”; as “Orwellian”; and as a “human rights problem”. Participants generally felt that receiving a vaccine was not changing the extent to which people were adhering to COVID-19 measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, positive sentiment toward vaccines was high. However, there remains a number of potential barriers which might be leading to vaccine delay in some. ‘Vaccine delay’ might be a more useful and precise construct than vaccine hesitancy in explaining why some may initially ignore or be uncertain about vaccination invitations. Vaccine passports may increase or ‘nudge’ uptake in some delayers but remain controversial. Earlier concerns that vaccination might reduce adherence to social distancing measures are not borne out in our data, with most people reporting ongoing adherence and caution.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.17.21257092: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Coding was performed using NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS). NVivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)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:There are a number of limitations to note. Firstly, as with all qualitative studies, the generalizability of the findings is limited. As such, …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.17.21257092: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Coding was performed using NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS). NVivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)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:There are a number of limitations to note. Firstly, as with all qualitative studies, the generalizability of the findings is limited. As such, percentages in each vaccine group (accepters, delayers, refusers) should be viewed cautiously and only in association with larger quantitative surveys on the topic. Another limitation of the study is that although attempts were made to recruit and include as diverse a sample as possible, there is a relative underrepresentation of older adults (aged 50+ in the sample). However, for the purposes of the research question around vaccine uptake having a younger sample may be of benefit. Further strengths and limitations of the overall methodology and recruitment in the wider study are discussed in prior publications (Williams et al 2020a; Williams 2020b). However, a particular strength of this study is its ability to provide in-depth and nuanced context as to the reasons for vaccine acceptance, delay or refusal, as well as the facilitators and barriers to uptake and views on vaccine passports and post-vaccine adherence. COVID-19 policy is a rapidly changing landscape, and thus public attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines may evolve accordingly. Further research is needed to explore the evolution of attitudes to vaccines, as is comparative work comparing across various countries.
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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
