Factors Associated with Intention to Receive Vaccination against COVID-19 in Puerto Rico: An Online Survey of Adults

  1. Kyle Melin
  2. Cheyu Zhang
  3. Juan P. Zapata
  4. Yonaira M. Rivera
  5. Katie Fernandez
  6. Enbal Shacham
  7. Souhail M. Malavé-Rivera
  8. Carlos E. Rodriguez-Diaz

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We conducted an online survey among adults in Puerto Rico to identify factors associated with the intention to receive vaccination against COVID-19. Sociodemographic variables were analyzed independently for association with intent to receive vaccination. Significant associations were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. A total of 1016 responses were available for analysis. In the bivariate analysis, younger age, higher education, pre-COVID-19 employment, male sex, gay/bisexual identity, and single marital status were associated with increased intent to receive the vaccination. In the multivariate logistic regression, younger, male respondents, and those with higher educational attainment reported higher intent to receive the vaccination. Lower-income and living outside the San Juan metro region were associated with lower intent to receive the vaccination. National and international health organizations were identified as the most reliable sources of information, followed by healthcare professionals. These findings highlight the importance of considering sociodemographic characteristics and using trusted sources of information when designing COVID-19 vaccination public messaging.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/ijerph18157743
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253972: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: After screening and providing consent to participate, a total of n=1031 participants completed the survey.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. As mentioned previously, vaccine acceptability tends to decrease over time following the onset of a pandemic, and responses from July of 2020 may overestimate intention to vaccinate. Also, the item assessing intention to vaccinate was posed in a hypothetical manner as no vaccine was yet available. As such, perceptions and intentions may have changed since that time, in particular with regards to media coverage of different vaccine manufacturers and vaccines currently approved or in development.

    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.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253972 on medRxiv