Racial differences in vaccine acceptance in a rural southern US state
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction
To assess vaccine acceptance among adults living in a largely rural Southern state.
Methods
Data were collected between October 3 and October 17, 2020 using random digit dialing. Participants included residents aged 18+, able to understand English or Spanish, and provide informed consent. The primary outcome was a multi-dimensional COVID-19 vaccine acceptance measure. Scores varied between -3 to +3.
Results
The sample (n=1,164) was weighted to be representative of the state’s population. Black participants had the lowest overall vaccine acceptance (0.5) compared to White participants (1.2). Hispanic participants had the highest scores (1.4). In adjusted models, Black participants had 0.81 points lower acceptance than White participants, and Hispanic participants had 0.35 points higher acceptance. Hispanic participants had the highest scores for all five vaccine acceptance dimensions, relatively equivalent to White participants. Black participants had consistently lower scores, especially perceived vaccine safety (mean -0.2, SD 0.1).
Conclusions
The lowest vaccine acceptance rates were among Black participants particularly on perceived vaccine safety. While Black participants had the lowest acceptance scores, Hispanic participants had the highest. This variability shows the value of a multi-dimensional vaccine acceptance measure to inform COVID-19 vaccination campaign strategies.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.12.22274953: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: After expressing willingness to participate, the RA asked if the respondent was: 18 years or older; a resident of Arkansas; able to understand and speak English or Spanish; and willing to provide informed consent.
IRB: Study procedures were approved by an institutional review board for the protection of human subjects (# 260974).Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Land lines were a random sample of all known land lines in Arkansas. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analyses: Data was collected using computer assisted telephone interviews with data stored in a Research Electronic … SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.12.22274953: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: After expressing willingness to participate, the RA asked if the respondent was: 18 years or older; a resident of Arkansas; able to understand and speak English or Spanish; and willing to provide informed consent.
IRB: Study procedures were approved by an institutional review board for the protection of human subjects (# 260974).Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Land lines were a random sample of all known land lines in Arkansas. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analyses: Data was collected using computer assisted telephone interviews with data stored in a Research Electronic Data Capture (RedCap) database. RedCapsuggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)Stata version SE 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) was used to manage and analyze data. StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)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 some limitations which should be noted. First, the sample includes the population of only one state. Therefore, findings are generalizable only within Arkansas. Even so, given similarities with the populations of other Southern states, our findings are likely more broadly indicative of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the South. Although non-response rates were reduced and survey results were weighted, response bias can still impact interpretations due to response patterns. Additionally, the survey was conducted just before the FDA approved the two mRNA vaccines currently available in the U.S. While the media were reporting the imminent emergency approval of the vaccines while the survey was ongoing, we were unable to assess the acceptance after formal approval of the vaccines.
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.
-
