Cross-sectional Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Health Care Workers in Los Angeles
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical considerations: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-000478). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC) and R (R Core Team, 2014) statistical software; figures were produced using the R package ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009). ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical considerations: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-000478). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC) and R (R Core Team, 2014) statistical software; figures were produced using the R package ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009). ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)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:This study had several limitations. Although the majority of participants opted in to this supplemental vaccine attitudes survey, a high proportion of cohort members did not. Despite this, a side-by-side comparison of the full study cohort and vaccine module respondents shows similar demographic breakdowns for each, diminishing the risk of selection bias. Our cohort was overwhelmingly highly educated and of higher socioeconomic status. This trend is, in part, a reflection of the post-graduate degrees required by those in many healthcare positions, though a more thorough sampling of other health system employees with diverse economic backgrounds and job types should be pursued for recruitment in future studies. Additionally, this cross-sectional study measured vaccine attitudes at a specific time point in the COVID-19 pandemic from late September to mid-October, 2020. As major vaccine news, political circumstances, and regional epidemiologic data change on a daily basis, it is likely that vaccine attitudes will change frequently over time, and thus will need to be longitudinally monitored. As national and local experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic have unveiled our deficiencies in public health communication, HCW remain key allies in disease control strategies. Hesitancy towards a novel coronavirus vaccine among this cohort should serve as a warning sign to public health authorities, as it could trigger a ripple effect in the general public. It may also signal an unwilling...
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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-000478). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC) and R (R Core Team, 2014) statistical software; figures were produced using the R package ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009). ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)Results from OddPub: We …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-000478). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC) and R (R Core Team, 2014) statistical software; figures were produced using the R package ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009). ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)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:
This study had several limitations. Although the majority of participants opted in to this supplemental vaccine attitudes survey, a high proportion of cohort members did not. Despite this, a side-by-side comparison of the full study cohort and vaccine module respondents shows similar demographic breakdowns for each, diminishing the risk of selection bias. Our cohort was overwhelmingly highly educated and of higher socioeconomic status. This trend is, in part, a reflection of the post-graduate degrees required by those in many healthcare positions, though a more thorough sampling of other health system employees with diverse economic backgrounds and job types should be pursued for recruitment in future studies. Additionally, this crosssectional study measured vaccine attitudes at a specific time point in the COVID-19 pandemic from late September to mid-October, 2020. As major vaccine news, political circumstances, and regional epidemiologic data change on a daily basis, it is likely that vaccine attitudes will change frequently over time, and thus will need to be longitudinally monitored. As national and local experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic have unveiled our deficiencies in public health communication, HCW remain key allies in disease control strategies. Hesitancy towards a novel coronavirus vaccine among this cohort should serve as a warning sign to public health authorities, as it could trigger a ripple effect in the general public. It may also signal an unwillingn...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
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.
-
