Assessment of the knowledge, preferences and concern regarding the prospective COVID-19 vaccine among adults residing in New Delhi, India – A cross-sectional study

  1. Farzana Islam
  2. Rashmi Agarwalla
  3. Meely Panda
  4. Yasir Alvi
  5. Vishal Singh
  6. Arup Debroy
  7. Arindam Ray
  8. Amruta Vadnerkar
  9. Shraddha Uttekar

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Understanding the perception and concerns of people about COVID-19 vaccine in developing and populous country like India will help in understanding demand for the vaccine and further tailoring out public health information and education activities. The study was carried out to assess the present state of knowledge people have about the probable vaccine for COVID-19, to know the preferences of respondents about this vaccine and to learn the expectations and apprehensions of people about features of this prospective COVID-19 vaccine residing in the capital city of India.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted amongst the residents of Delhi, India from July to October 2020. Both offline and online interview method was used to collect date from 513 participants representing various occupational strata. Data were collected on sociodemographic variable, vaccine acceptance and concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine.

Results:

Among the study population, 79.5% said they will take the vaccine while 8.8% said they were not going to take the vaccine and remaining 11.7% had not yet decided about it. More than 50% were willing to pay for the vaccine and 72% felt vaccine should first be given to health workers and high-risk group.

Conclusion:

The following study has helped to understand the percentage of people who are hesitant to take the vaccine and also the concerns regarding the vaccine. Also since half of the population is willing to pay for the vaccine, a strategic approach considering the various economical classes of people could be applied in a developing country like India.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2437_20
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.23.21250164: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethics statement: Permission to conduct the study was taken from the Research Proposal Advisory Committee and approval was taken from the Institutional Ethics Committee.
    Consent: Informed consent in writing was taken from respondents who participated through physical interview and online consent was taken by participants who filled the form online.
    RandomizationFor the physical interview method, individuals were selected by simple random sampling from among these strata’s so as to reach our estimated sample size.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisAt 90% power and 95% confidence interval, the sample size came out to be 400.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Collected data was entered in the MS Excel spreadsheet, coded appropriately and later cleaned for any possible errors in a SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Studies) for windows version 21.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    [25] Limitations: Only a sub sample of the population could be included in the study. Large scale studies from whole of India are needed to understand the knowledge, expectation and apprehension before the launch of the vaccine. Another limitation of the study was that it did not have equal representative from various economic and occupational strata of society which could bias the result.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2021.01.23.21250164v1 on medRxiv