COVID-19 vaccine uptake, predictors of vaccination, and self-reported barriers to vaccination among primary school teachers in Poland

  1. Marta Malesza
  2. Karolina Sobolewska

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

It has been proposed that teachers, like healthcare workers, constitute a strategic target for COVID-19 vaccine programs as immunization is a key element in protecting both them and their pupils. The present study examined vaccine uptake among primary-school teachers and sought to identify factors associated with it. A sample was recruited from 553 Polish primary schools, and data were collected at two time points: December 2020 and March 2021. Associations between vaccine uptake among teachers and their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination were assessed through multivariate logistic regression. 6152 participants completed both baseline and follow-up surveys. Of these, 4502 (73.2%) reported their intention at baseline to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, if available; at follow-up, 3894 (86.5%) of the same 4502 reported having received the vaccination. A significant association was revealed between vaccine uptake and perceived severity, self-efficacy, and social norms. The principal driver for vaccine acceptance was the wish to avoid contracting the disease. Conversely, the principal driver for vaccine refusal was concern about side effects and safety. A strong association exists between intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and actual uptake. Future COVID-19 immunization programs may benefit from a stronger understanding of the factors associated with vaccine uptake among this cohort.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.11.21260317: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The following eligibility criteria were applied: (1) being employed as a teacher in a participating primary school; and (2) provision of online informed consent to participate.
    IRB: The Institutional Review Board of University of Economics and Social Sciences in Warsaw, Poland approved all procedures involving human subjects.
    Sex as a biological variableOf the total 6152 participants considered, that is, those who completed both surveys, 79.3% were female and 20.7% were male.
    RandomizationA stratified sampling method was employed, and invitations to participate were sent to randomly-chosen primary schools.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.07.11.21260317v1 on medRxiv