Estimating vaccine confidence levels among healthcare students and staff of a tertiary institution in South Africa: protocol of a cross-sectional survey

  1. Elizabeth O Oduwole
  2. Hassan Mahomed
  3. Birhanu T Ayele
  4. Charles Shey Wiysonge

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The outbreak of novel COVID-19 caught the world off guard in the first quarter of 2020. To stem the tide of this pandemic, there was acceleration of the development, testing and prelicensure approval for emergency use of some COVID-19 vaccine candidates. This led to raised public concern about their safety and efficacy, compounding the challenges of vaccine hesitancy. The onus of managing and administering these vaccines to a sceptical populace when they do become available rests mostly on the shoulders of healthcare workers (HCWs). Therefore, the vaccine confidence levels of HCWs become critical to the success of vaccination endeavours. This proposed study aims to estimate the level of vaccine confidence and the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine among future HCWs and their trainers at a specific university in Cape Town, South Africa, and to identify any vaccination concerns early for targeted intervention.

Methods and analysis

This proposed study is a cross-sectional survey study. An online questionnaire will be distributed to all current staff and students of the Faculty of Medicine Health Sciences of Stellenbosch University in Cape Town, South Africa. No sampling strategy will be employed. The survey questionnaire will consist of demographic questions (consisting of six items) and vaccine confidence questions (comprising six items in Likert scale format). Log binomial models will be employed to identify factors associated with vaccine confidence and intention. The strength of association will be assessed using the OR and its 95% CI. Statistical significance will be defined at a p value <0.05.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained for the study from Stellenbosch University (Human Research Ethics Committee reference number S19/01/014 (PhD)). The results will be shared with relevant health authorities, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049877
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251068: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Voluntary participation in the survey will be deemed as consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data collection: The survey will be conducted online using REDCAP survey software to capture participants’ responses.
    REDCAP
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)
    Data entry, cleaning and coding will be done using the REDCAP survey software or Microsoft Excel program and exported to Stata software version 16.1 (College Station, TX) for analysis.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    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 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 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251068v1 on medRxiv