Costly Miscommunication: College Students with Disabilities’ Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccine Costs

  1. Z.W. Taylor
  2. Chelseaia Charran

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Institutions of higher education have mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for students wishing to return to an on-campus, in-person learning experience. However, college students with disabilities (SWDs) may be hesitant to take a COVID-19 vaccine for a variety of reasons, possibly delaying or denying these students’ access to higher education. Yet, an under-researched aspect of COVID-19 vaccinations and related communication is whether college students with disabilities understand that the COVID-19 vaccine is free and whether that understanding varies by intersectional identities. As a result, this study’s research team surveyed 245 college students with disabilities to explore these students’ knowledge of vaccine costs and whether differences exist between groups. Data suggests many college students with disabilities do not know that COVID-19 vaccinations are free: White/Caucasian SWDs were most aware of COVID-19 vaccines being free (23.6%), while Latinx students were least aware (1.3%). Moreover, women were more aware of free COVID-19 vaccines (14.8%) than men (11.4%), first generation college students were more aware (15.6%) than non-first generation college students (12.2%), and full-time students (19%) were more aware than part-time students (8.9%). Overall, less than 25% of SWDs understood that COVID-19 vaccines are free. Implications for health communication, vaccine awareness, and higher education policy are addressed.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.04.21265924: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The survey asked for a student’s birth year, race (Asian American/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic, White/Caucasian, or a fill-in-the-blank), gender (woman, man, non-binary conforming), first generation in college status (defined as neither parent earning any level of postsecondary credential), educational level (two-year, four-year, or graduate), enrollment status (part- or full-time), and current mode of education (on-campus, online, or hybrid).
    Islander
    suggested: (Islander, RRID:SCR_007758)

    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 10.1101/2021.11.04.21265924v1 on medRxiv