Determinants of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy spectrum

  1. Rachael Piltch-Loeb
  2. Diana R. Silver
  3. Yeerae Kim
  4. Hope Norris
  5. Elizabeth McNeill
  6. David M. Abramson

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy remains an issue in the United States. This study conducted an online survey [N = 3,013] using the Social Science Research Solution [SSRS] Opinion Panel web panelists, representative of U.S. adults age 18 and older who use the internet, with an oversample of rural-dwelling and minority populations between April 8 and April 22, 2021- as vaccine eligibility opened to the country. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 exposure and socio-demographics with vaccine intentions [eager-to-take, wait-and-see, undecided, refuse] among the unvaccinated using multinomial logistic regressions [ref: fully/partially vaccinated]. Results showed vaccine intentions varied by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience during the period that eligibility for the vaccine was extended to all adults. At the time of the survey approximately 40% of respondents were unvaccinated; 41% knew someone who had died of COVID-19, and 38% had experienced financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. The vaccinated were more likely to be highly educated, older adults, consistent with the United States initial eligibility criteria. Political affiliation and financial hardship experienced during the pandemic were the two most salient factors associated with being undecided or unwilling to take the vaccine.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0267734
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261675: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: IRB approval was obtained through the NYU UCAIHS and the panelists were provided with a consent form at the beginning of the survey, which they acknowledged by clicking yes and proceeding to the survey.
    Sex as a biological variableFor the sociodemographic characteristics, age (18-29, 30-49, 50-64 and 65 and older), sex (female and male), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic and other), educational attainment (Less than or graduated High School, some college or graduated college, and post graduate or professional degree), annual household income (≤$25,000, $25,001-≤$50,000, $50,001-≤$75,000, $75,001-≤$100,000, ≥$100,001), religion (Protestant, Evangelical Catholic, other and Agnostic/Atheist), living in rural or metro, types of health insurance (private, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE/Indian HS/Veteran/Other and uninsured), being a parent (those living with children under age 18), and political party affiliation (Democrat, Republican, independent, and don’t know) were included.
    RandomizationAn online survey was conducted from a random sample of the Social Science Research Solution (SSRS) Opinion Panel web panelists, representative of U.S. adults age 18 and older who use the internet.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    For the sociodemographic characteristics, age (18-29, 30-49, 50-64 and 65 and older), sex (female and male), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic and other), educational attainment (Less than or graduated High School, some college or graduated college, and post graduate or professional degree), annual household income (≤$25,000, $25,001-≤$50,000, $50,001-≤$75,000, $75,001-≤$100,000, ≥$100,001), religion (Protestant, Evangelical Catholic, other and Agnostic/Atheist), living in rural or metro, types of health insurance (private, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE/Indian HS/Veteran/Other and uninsured), being a parent (those living with children under age 18), and political party affiliation (Democrat, Republican, independent, and don’t know) were included.
    non-Hispanic White
    suggested: None

    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:
    Like all studies, this study has some limitations. Our sample differs from the adult population in several ways, as do most online survey panels. However, a number of high-quality studies have used similar approaches, whether by using the KnowledgePanel, Amazon M Turk, or other firms, and SSRS has a robust mechanism for quality checks that were embedded in our survey. Our study is cross-sectional, and thus cannot make claims about causality. Finally, our survey relies on self-report, and focuses on intentions, not behaviors, which may change. At the same time, it offers a snapshot of the US public’s intentions just as all adults became eligible for the vaccine, such that intentions could be quickly realized.

    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.

    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 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261675v1 on medRxiv