COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions and Differences by Sex, Age, and Education in 1,367 Community Adults in Ontario

  1. Sabrina K. Syan
  2. Mahmood R. Gohari
  3. Emily E. Levitt
  4. Kyla Belisario
  5. Jessica Gillard
  6. Jane DeJesus
  7. James MacKillop

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 is a global pandemic and vaccination efforts may be impeded by vaccine hesitancy. The present study examined willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the associated reasons for willingness/unwillingness, and vaccine safety perceptions in a cross-sectional assessment of community adults in Ontario.

Methods: One thousand three hundred sixty seven individuals (60.6% female, mean age = 37.5%) participated in this study between January 15, 2021 and February 15, 2021. Perceptions of vaccine safety and reasons for willingness/unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine were investigated using an online assessment. Perceptions were investigated in general and by age, sex and education using analysis of variance.

Results: Overall, 82.8% of the sample reported they were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and 17.2% reported they were unwilling. The three most common reasons for unwillingness were long-term side effects (65.5%), immediate side effects (60.5%), and lack of trust in the vaccine (55.2%). Vaccine willingness significantly differed by sex and education level, with female participants and those with less than a bachelor's degree being more likely to report unwillingness. Perception of COVID-19 vaccine safety was significantly lower (−10.3%) than vaccines in general and differed by age, sex and education, with females, older adults, and individuals with less than a bachelor's degree reporting lower perceived COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Conclusion: In this sample of community adults, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate was less than one in five individuals, but with higher rates in population subgroups. Targeting public health messaging to females and individuals with less than bachelor's degree, and addressing concerns about long-term and immediate side effects may increase vaccine uptake.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpubh.2021.719665
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256489: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Protocol # 4699) and complied with the Helsinki Declaration.
    Sex as a biological variableParticipants reflected middle-aged adults with greater representation of females compared to males (60.6%).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were collected via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software(Harris et al., 2009) and participants received a $40 gift card.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    This study should be considered in the context of its strengths and limitations. Amongst its strengths, it systematically assessed vaccine willingness, reasons, and safety, and provides timely information that may guide public health efforts to decrease hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. The sample size was relatively large which allowed for high statistical power and the sample was relatively representative of community adults in Canada. For example, approximately 65% of our sample completed at least some postsecondary education, which is consistent with the national average of 68%. Further, the median age, racial demographics and income reported within the study are reflective of the general population in Hamilton, ON, thus, the results of this study are generalizable to the wider population of the region. With regards to limitations, our study population was primarily comprised of individuals of European ancestry and thus lacks racial diversity. As such, we were not able to comment on willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or safety perceptions within specific racial groups and may be less generalizable to highly racially diverse catchment areas. Similarly, the sample was recruited from an urban/suburban catchment area and thus lacks rural representation. Taken together, in this large community-based sample, the large majority of individuals reported being willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, but a notable fraction portion was not, principally due to c...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256489v1 on medRxiv