Attitudes towards Vaccines, Intent to Vaccinate and the Relationship with COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Individuals with Schizophrenia

  1. Stéphane Raffard
  2. Sophie Bayard
  3. Margot Eisenblaetter
  4. Jérôme Attal
  5. Christelle Andrieu
  6. Isabelle Chereau
  7. Guillaume Fond
  8. Sylvain Leignier
  9. Jasmina Mallet
  10. Philippe Tattard
  11. Mathieu Urbach
  12. David Misdrahi
  13. Yasmine Laraki
  14. Delphine Capdevielle

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Schizophrenia patients are at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 outcomes but recent evidence suggests that they are under-vaccinated. This study explored the role of potential attitudinal barriers by comparing schizophrenia patients with participants from the general population regarding COVID-19 vaccination rates, general attitudes towards vaccines, and willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted a cross-sectional study between April 2021 and October 2021. A total of 100 people with schizophrenia and 72 nonclinical controls were recruited. In our study, individuals with schizophrenia were under-vaccinated, despite similar general attitudes towards vaccination and higher willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to nonclinical participants. In patients, negative attitudes toward vaccines were related to higher levels of negative psychotic symptoms and higher levels of paranoid ideation. As a whole, participants with more negative attitudes towards vaccines were less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and had lower levels of trust in institutions. Vaccine hesitancy does not appear to be a major barrier for COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst people with schizophrenia. This study suggests that disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates in schizophrenia do not seem related to attitudinal but rather structural barriers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines10081228
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.12.22269167: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Procedure: Following a thorough explanation of the study, all participants provided informed and written consent before participating.
    IRB: This study was conducted in accordance to the ethical standards described by the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board (IRB ID: 202100768).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Paranoid ideations were assessed in both groups using the short version of the Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) which has recently been validated in French (24).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Global cognitive functioning was assessed in both groups using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA,
    MoCA
    suggested: (MOCA, RRID:SCR_010638)
    Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses were performed with the Jamovi statistical computer software [The jamovi project (2021). jamovi. (Version 1.6) Retrieved from http://www.jamovi.org].
    Jamovi
    suggested: (jamovi, RRID:SCR_016142)

    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:
    The current study had several limitations that restrict the interpretation and generalizability of the results. The main limitation is the cross-sectional design of our study. Even though we found an association between negative attitudes and lower vaccination rates in both groups, we cannot conclude a causal relationship between these two variables. Future studies with a longitudinal design are needed. Second, our sample group was composed exclusively of French individuals, limiting the generalizability of our results. There is evidence that in Europe, and particularly in France, trust towards vaccination remains low compared to other continents (38). Replication of the present study in other countries would allow for a better understanding of attitudes towards vaccination in different populations (including in individuals with mental illnesses).

    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 10.1101/2022.01.12.22269167v1 on medRxiv