COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Diverse Groups in the UK—Is the Driver Economic or Cultural in Student Populations
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Studies have identified a greater reluctance for members of the Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities to be vaccinated against COVID-19 despite a higher probability of greater harm from COVID-19. We conducted an anonymised questionnaire-based study of students (recruiting primarily before first reports of embolic events) at two London universities to identify whether economic or educational levels were primarily responsible for this reluctance: a postgraduate core group (PGCC) n = 860, and a pilot study of undergraduate medical and nursing students (n = 103). Asian and Black students were 2.0 and 3.2 times (PGCC) less likely to accept the COVID vaccine than White British students. Similar findings were noted in the pilot study students. As the students were studying for Master’s or PhD degrees and voluntarily paying high fees, educational and economic reasons were unlikely to be the underlying cause, and wider cultural reservations were more likely. Politicians exerted a strong negative influence, suggesting that campaigns should omit politicians.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.14.21267773: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Ethics was obtained from the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21IC6546) and City University Research Ethics Committee (Ref: ETH2021-0904).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participants.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in STATA MP 15.1. STATAsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.14.21267773: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Ethics was obtained from the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21IC6546) and City University Research Ethics Committee (Ref: ETH2021-0904).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participants.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in STATA MP 15.1. STATAsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)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.
- 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.
-