Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18–29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Results
A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive.
Conclusion
Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.23.21268325: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Field Sample Permit: Data collection and analysis: Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or phone. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Interviews were recorded with consent, transcribed, anonymised and entered into Nvivo v12. Nvivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)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: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.23.21268325: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Field Sample Permit: Data collection and analysis: Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or phone. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Interviews were recorded with consent, transcribed, anonymised and entered into Nvivo v12. Nvivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)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: Despite best efforts, our recruitment strategy may have missed relevant voices, including those who are not computer literate. Our data must be interpreted with this in mind. Conclusions: In conclusion, the majority of young people described and concluded that for themselves, the benefits of vaccination did not outweigh the perceived risks to themselves. They did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 and did not think that the vaccination was capable of protecting those around them. This, combined with concerns about the safety of the vaccine, resulted in reluctance to be vaccinated at present. Perceptions of risks and benefits were influenced by participants’ age and health status, trust in government, understanding of science, and pre-existing ideas and expectations. Participants were unsure who they could and could not trust and were resistant to attempts that were viewed as coercive. In order to promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that carefully explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated appointments must be easily accessible (both in terms of location and timing). Research now needs to identify how to communicate risks (from COVID-19 and vaccination) and benefits (for the individual and population) so that people can make informed pe...
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.
-
