Changing Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccine among North Carolina Participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership

  1. Chukwunyelu H. Enwezor
  2. James E. Peacock
  3. Austin L. Seals
  4. Sharon L. Edelstein
  5. Amy N. Hinkelman
  6. Thomas F. Wierzba
  7. Iqra Munawar
  8. Patrick D. Maguire
  9. William H. Lagarde
  10. Michael S. Runyon
  11. Michael A. Gibbs
  12. Thomas R. Gallaher
  13. John W. Sanders
  14. David M. Herrington

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance is variable. We surveyed participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership from 17 December 2020 to 13 January 2021 to assess vaccine receptiveness. Vaccine uptake was then monitored until 15 May 2021; 20,232 participants responded to the receptiveness survey with vaccination status accessed in 18,874 participants via daily follow-up surveys (participants not completing daily surveys ≥30 days to 15 May 2021, were excluded). In the initial survey, 4802 (23.8%) were vaccine hesitant. Hesitancy was most apparent in women (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), Black Americans (Adjusted RR 1.39, 1.41, 1.31 to non-Hispanic Whites, Other, and Hispanic or Latino, respectively p < 0.001), healthcare workers (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), suburbanites (ref. Urban Adjusted RR 0.85, 0.90 to urban and rural dwellers, respectively, p < 0.01), and those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (RR 1.20, p < 0.01). Those <50 years were also less accepting of vaccination. Subsequent vaccine uptake was 99% in non-hesitant participants. For those who were unsure, preferred not to answer, or answered “no”, vaccination rates were 80% (Adjusted RR 0.86, p < 0.0001), 78% (Adjusted RR 0.83, p < 0.0001), and 52.7% (Adjusted RR 0.65, p < 0.0001), respectively. These findings suggest that initial intent did not correlate with vaccine uptake in our cohort.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines9080916
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.20.21257343: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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:
    There are several potential limitations of this study. First, our data represent responses from respondents in North Carolina enrolled into an ongoing research study through regional healthcare systems and may not be representative of national data. Our volunteers are likely to be better connected to a healthcare system and more comfortable with electronic communication than the general community. Second, this survey provides a snapshot in time during the early rollout of the vaccines, and attitudes may have changed with more recent nationwide and local interventions to address hesitancy. Third, the demographics of our survey participants may not reflect national demographics. Fourth, our finding of more hesitancy among suburban residents may simply reflect limitations in our method for characterizing counties as it is difficult to accurately describe many counties in North Carolina as entirely urban, suburban, or rural. Finally, survey results might not be comparable to other national or state polls or surveys due to potential differences in survey methods, sample population, and questions related to willingness to get the vaccine. In conclusion, in this survey of participants in North Carolina from mid-December 2020 to January 2021, a large majority indicated intent to undergo COVID-19 vaccination. Our survey results suggest that vaccination hesitancy may be a potential impediment to a successful vaccination campaign, especially among several subgroups. Opportunities exist ...

    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 10.1101/2021.05.20.21257343v1 on medRxiv