Daniel Freeman1,2, Bao S Loe3, Andrew Chadwick4, Cristian Vaccari4, Felicity Waite1,2, Laina Rosebrock1,2, Lucy Jenner1,2, Ariane Petit1,2, Stephan Lewandowsky5, Samantha Vanderslott6, Stefania Innocenti7, Michael Larkin8, Alberto Giubilini9, Ly-Mee Yu10, Helen McShane11, Andrew J Pollard6, Sinéad Lambe1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. The Psychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 4. Online Civic Culture Centre, Department of Communication and Media, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. 5. School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 6. Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 7. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Department of Psychology, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 9. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 10. Nuffield Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 11. Nuffield Department of Medicine, The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.
Authors: David Forbes; Nathan Alkemade; Damon Mitchell; Jon D Elhai; Tony McHugh; Glen Bates; Raymond W Novaco; Richard Bryant; Virginia Lewis Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: David Fowler; Daniel Freeman; Ben Smith; Elizabeth Kuipers; Paul Bebbington; Hannah Bashforth; Sian Coker; Joanne Hodgekins; Alison Gracie; Graham Dunn; Philippa Garety Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Eva Schernhammer; Jakob Weitzer; Manfred D Laubichler; Brenda M Birmann; Martin Bertau; Lukas Zenk; Guido Caniglia; Carlo C Jäger; Gerald Steiner Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Salma M Khaled; Catalina Petcu; Lina Bader; Iman Amro; Aisha Mohammed H A Al-Hamadi; Marwa Al Assi; Amal Awadalla Mohamed Ali; Kien Le Trung; Abdoulaye Diop; Tarek Bellaj; Mohamed H Al-Thani; Peter W Woodruff; Majid Alabdulla; Peter M Haddad Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Yoshihiko Kadoya; Somtip Watanapongvanich; Pattaphol Yuktadatta; Pongpat Putthinun; Stella T Lartey; Mostafa Saidur Rahim Khan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-02 Impact factor: 3.390