Vaccine hesitancy and access to psoriasis care during the COVID ‐19 pandemic: findings from a global patient‐reported cross‐sectional survey

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.20.22269546: (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
    Data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools, licensed to King’s College London18.
    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:
    Our findings are in keeping with this, and since our study was conducted after the initiation of the COVID-19 programme, we in part address a limitation of studies focusing on intention alone rather than actual behaviour. An association between disruption to psoriasis care and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is suggested in our dataset (non-statistically significant after adjustment). This is partly mediated by the effects of confounding variables such as age, gender and ethnicity, which associate with both exposure and outcome. Individuals who feel disenfranchised by healthcare services due to disruption to their care may be more likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. Other studies in the general population indicate that individuals with negative perceptions of doctors have higher vaccine hesitancy, and those with positive healthcare experiences are less likely to be hesitant12. Higher expectation for care, as sometimes seen in individuals with more severe disease31,32, could also explain the association between disrupted access to care and vaccine hesitancy. Identifying individuals who feel their care has been negatively affected during the pandemic (underserved groups e.g. those of younger age or non-white ethnicity according to our data) will allow us to explore their vaccine concerns (e.g. flares/side effects post-vaccination, vaccine being too new) and ultimately improve vaccine uptake. The PsoProtectMe sample size is large, includes a broad range of ages, psoriasis severit...

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.