A study on willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine at a tertiary institution community in Johannesburg, South Africa
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background: South Africa is aiming to achieve herd immunity against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the first quarter of 2022. The success of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out depends primarily on the willingness of the population to take the vaccines.Aim: This study aimed to examine the willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine, along with the factors of concern, efficacy and preferences of the individual, which may increase the willingness to be vaccinated.Setting: This study was conducted at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, amongst adult students and academic and professional staff.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey from 27 July 2021 to 14 August 2021 was conducted. We performed descriptive and inferential analysis to determine the factors associated with willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine.Results: A total of 2364 participants responded to a survey link and 82.0% were students, 66.8% were in the 18–29 years age band and females represented 64.0%. A total of 1965 participants (83.3%) were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the most preferred vaccines were Pfizer (41%) and JJ (23%), local pharmacy (29%) and General Practitioner (GP) (17%) were the preferred places for vaccination and the trusted sources of information on COVID-19 vaccines were the general practitioners (40.6%) and specialists (19.2%). Perceptions that vaccines are safe (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 31.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.02–62.12 for affirmative agreement) and effective (aOR = 5.92, 95% CI: 2.87–12.19 for affirmative agreement) were the main determinants of willingness to taking a COVID-19 vaccine.Conclusion: It is imperative to reinforce the message of COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy and to include the GPs and the community pharmacies in the vaccination roll-out in South Africa.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.11.21264845: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Data collection procedures and ethical considerations: After obtaining ethics approval from the University of Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (M210495), and permission from the University of the Witwatersrand registrar, the registrar’s office sent the survey link to eligible students and staff.
Consent: The email contained information on the study and participants had to consent before they could access the survey questionnaire.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 The survey responses were captured in Research Electronic Data Capture … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.11.21264845: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Data collection procedures and ethical considerations: After obtaining ethics approval from the University of Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (M210495), and permission from the University of the Witwatersrand registrar, the registrar’s office sent the survey link to eligible students and staff.
Consent: The email contained information on the study and participants had to consent before they could access the survey questionnaire.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 The survey responses were captured in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database (18). REDCapsuggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)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 findings of this study should be interpreted considering the following limitations. First, a poor response rate (5%) introduces the selection bias of participation of those using the university email, internet access (for those working from home), and those interested in the topic. Second, a potential risk to a social desirability response of over-reporting willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccines but the online anonymous survey would have mitigated this bias. Third, even though the university community is comprised of individuals from all walks of life and geographical areas in the Gauteng province, the findings may not be entirely generalizable to the general population but university communities in South Africa. Finally, because of the cross-sectional nature of the study, we are only able to determine the factors associated with willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
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.
-
