Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among residents of Northern California jails

  1. Yiran E. Liu
  2. Jillian Oto
  3. John Will
  4. Christopher LeBoa
  5. Alexis Doyle
  6. Neil Rens
  7. Shelley Aggarwal
  8. Iryna Kalish
  9. Marcela Rodriguez
  10. Beruk Sherif
  11. Chrisele Trinidad
  12. Michael Del Rosario
  13. Sophie Allen
  14. Robert Spencer
  15. Carlos Morales
  16. Alexander Chyorny
  17. Jason R Andrews

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101771
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.22.21266559: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: After administering written informed consent, surveys were administered by research coordinators via an electronic tablet; participants could choose to read and respond to questions themselves or respond orally to questions read aloud.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    Predictor variables included age group (18-29, 30-49, 50+), gender (man, woman, transgender person), race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latinx, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic other/unknown race), general trust (“Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted?
    non-Hispanic White
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Survey data were recorded in a HIPAA-secure REDCap database [17].
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    This study has several limitations. First, our retrospective chart review was restricted to data on vaccination in custody and did not include data on vaccination in the community following release. The chart review also excluded individuals who were in custody for under 26 days; future research should examine vaccine acceptance among those who are frequently admitted and released from custody as they may represent a uniquely vulnerable group and may facilitate COVID-19 transmission between jails and the community [28]. Next, the survey findings were limited by sample size and may not be representative of the entire jail population; they are also subject to limitations of self-reported data. Furthermore, although both chart review and survey enrollment occurred across several months, we did not have sufficient power to examine effects of calendar time on vaccine acceptance, as shown elsewhere [23]. While we attempted to infer factors underlying hesitancy and acceptance by linking survey responses with vaccination data, our understanding would be enhanced by more open-ended questions and qualitative data. Finally, these findings may have limited generalizability to the non-incarcerated population as well as to other carceral settings, as jails are often unique in culture, environment, and population.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.22.21266559v1 on medRxiv