Predictors of Real-World Parents’ Acceptance to Vaccinate Their Children Against the COVID-19

  1. Petros Galanis
  2. Irene Vraka
  3. Olga Siskou
  4. Olympia Konstantakopoulou
  5. Aglaia Katsiroumpa
  6. Ioannis Moisoglou
  7. Daphne Kaitelidou

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

 Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to threaten public health, the vaccination of children against the disease appears to be a key factor to control the pandemic. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of parents who have vaccinated their children against the COVID-19 and the factors influencing this decision.Materials and Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional study in Greece during the first week of September 2021. The study questionnaire was distributed through social media and a convenience sample was obtained. Only parents with children aged 12–17 years old could participate in the study. We collected socio-demographic data of parents and we measured their attitudes towards vaccination and COVID-19 pandemic.Results: Study population included 656 parents. Regarding vaccination, 27.1% of parents had their children vaccinated against the COVID-19, while almost all children had a complete vaccination history (98.9%). The most important reasons for decline of COVID-19 vaccination were doubts about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (45.3%) and fear of side effects (36.6%). Regarding the information about the COVID-19 vaccines, parents showed more trust in family doctors than in scientists and the government. We found that increased parents’ age, increased trust in COVID-19 vaccines, and positive attitude of parents towards vaccination had a positive effect on children’s vaccination.Conclusions: Understanding the factors influencing parents’ decision to vaccinate their children against the COVID-19 is crucial to increase the COVID-19 vaccination coverage rate. Implementation of public health policies is necessary to spread knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and to regain vaccine confidence.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.15388/amed.2021.29.1.4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.27.21264183: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical issues: The Ethics Committee of Department of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens approved the study protocol (reference number; 370, 02-09-2021).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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: Our study has a number of limitations. First, we used a convenience sample that is not representative of the general population in Greece. For instance, educational level of our parents is higher than that of the general population. Also, we collected information through social media and parents without social media accounts could not participate in our study. Thus, generalization of our results should be made cautiously. Second, we conducted a cross-sectional study but the situation regarding the COVID-19 vaccination programmes, the dynamic of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated policy measures is changing fast. It is therefore necessary to carry out further studies as soon as possible. Indeed, it would be better to carry out prospective studies in order to observe parents’ attitudes over time. Third, since our study was anonymous through social media, we cannot calculate the response rate and we cannot be aware of the profile of parents who refused to participate in the study. Thus, a selection bias is possible since parents who denied to participate in our study might have a different profile as compared to parents that participate. Fourth, the study questionnaire was self-reported and data verification was not feasible. For instance, parents may overestimate their vaccine acceptability due to social desirability. Moreover, we self-constructed some items in our study (e.g. self-perceived severity and knowledge, trust, etc.). Thus, an information bias mig...

    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 10.1101/2021.09.27.21264183v1 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.12.21263456: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Information on the purpose and design of the study was provided at the beginning of the on-line questionnaire, and HCWs provided informed consent to participate anonymously in the study.
    IRB: The Ethics Committee of Department of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens approved the study protocol (reference number; 370, 02-09-2021).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationWe subsequently decided to substantially increase the sample size to minimize random error.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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 should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. Given the convenience sample, the on-line data collection, and the unknown response rate, the extent to which our findings can be generalized to other parents is unknown. For instance, parents with limited internet access were less likely to participate in our study. There may have been an information bias in our study since vaccine uptake was self-reported and some parents may have falsely reported that they vaccinated their children. However, the fact that the questionnaire was completed anonymously may have reduced this bias. Moreover, we have explored several factors that may influence parents’ decision to vaccinate their children, but clearly there are other factors that can be studied such as psychological factors, mass media variables, impact of fake news, etc. Finally, our sample included mainly mothers with a high level of education. Thus, further studies with representative samples are critically needed to draw safer conclusions.

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.12.21263456v1 on medRxiv