COVID-19 booster vaccine attitudes and behaviors among university students and staff in the United States: The USC Trojan pandemic research Initiative

  1. Ryan C. Lee
  2. Howard Hu
  3. Eric S. Kawaguchi
  4. Andre E. Kim
  5. Daniel W. Soto
  6. Kush Shanker
  7. Jeffrey D. Klausner
  8. Sarah Van Orman
  9. Jennifer B. Unger

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.2022.101866
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.09.21267545: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Participants were eligible if they were currently employed or enrolled at USC, were at least 18 years of age, and provided informed consent.
    IRB: Procedure: This study was approved by the USC Institutional Review Board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: This analysis was based on a non-random sample of university students, staff, and faculty who responded to an online survey. Findings may not generalize to the general 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 10.1101/2021.12.09.21267545v1 on medRxiv