Analysis of social combinations of COVID-19 vaccination: Evidence from a conjoint analysis

  1. Hanako Ohmura

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Using a conjoint analysis based on Japanese cases, this study attempts to identify a preferable social strategic combination of who are vaccinated, who are not, and who are waiting. Using two surveys that relied on quota sampling reflecting the Japanese demographic composition ( n = 1024 & n = 2975), the results of the descriptive analysis show that the most preferred strategy at the individual level was wait-and-see, allowing for a risk assessment of side effects. Via conjoint analysis, I also found that participants who recalled blood relatives as their familiar entities tended to prefer a wait-and-see strategy for themselves and their blood relatives. The results of these analyses suggest that wait-and-see strategies for vaccination are preferred in Japan, making it difficult to achieve early herd immunity through vaccination.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0261426
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.13.21258654: (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

    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: 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 rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.06.13.21258654v1 on medRxiv