COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns about Safety, Effectiveness, and Policies in the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy among Unvaccinated Individuals
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Despite the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, global vaccination distribution efforts have thus far had varying levels of success. Vaccine hesitancy remains a threat to vaccine uptake. This study has four objectives: (1) describe and compare vaccine hesitancy proportions by country; (2) categorize vaccine-related concerns; (3) rank vaccine-related concerns; and (4) compare vaccine-related concerns by country and hesitancy status in four countries—the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy. Using the Pollfish survey platform, we sampled 1000 respondents in Canada, Sweden, and Italy and 750 respondents in the United States between 21–28 May 2021. Results showed vaccine-related concerns varied across three topical areas—vaccine safety and government control, vaccine effectiveness and population control, and freedom. For each thematic area, the top concern was statistically significantly different in each country and among the hesitant and non-hesitant subsamples within each county. Concerns related to freedom were the most universal. Understanding the specific concerns among individuals when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine can help to inform public communications and identify which, if any, salient narratives are global.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.09.21263328: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study protocol and survey instrument were approved by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization To incentivize participation, small monetary incentives are provided to randomly selected users who complete the surveys. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.09.21263328: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study protocol and survey instrument were approved by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization To incentivize participation, small monetary incentives are provided to randomly selected users who complete the surveys. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: 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.
-
