Katie Attwell1,2, Joshua Lake3, Joanne Sneddon3, Paul Gerrans3, Chris Blyth2,4,5, Julie Lee3. 1. School of Social Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2. Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute and School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 3. Centre for Human and Cultural Values, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 4. Department of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 5. Department of Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, QEII Medical Centre, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Broad community acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccination will be critical for effectively halting the spread of the virus. In this study, we focus on factors that differentiate those who are undecided from those who are either willing or unwilling to accept a prospective COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: An online survey in May 2020 assessed Australian adults' willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (yes, maybe, no). A multinomial logistical regression of responses (N = 1,313) was used to identify correlates of vaccine willingness between the three groups. RESULTS: 65% were willing to vaccinate, with 27% being in the 'maybe' category. Respondents were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than the 'yes' group when they perceived COVID-19 to be less severe, had less trust in science, were less willing to vaccinate for influenza, and were female. They were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than 'no' group when they perceived COVID-19 as severe, and less likely to be a hoax, had more trust in science, and greater willingness to vaccinate for influenza. A repeat of the survey in November 2020 with a subset of participants found fewer of them saying yes to the vaccine (56%) and more saying maybe (31%). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of any COVID-19 vaccine rollout will be reliant on maximizing uptake. The significant number of people who remain undecided about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine, despite the ongoing devastating consequences of the virus for individuals, communities, and economies, is concerning. Our findings aid current research seeking to inform policy regarding how to convince the undecided to vaccinate.
BACKGROUND: Broad community acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccination will be critical for effectively halting the spread of the virus. In this study, we focus on factors that differentiate those who are undecided from those who are either willing or unwilling to accept a prospective COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: An online survey in May 2020 assessed Australian adults' willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (yes, maybe, no). A multinomial logistical regression of responses (N = 1,313) was used to identify correlates of vaccine willingness between the three groups. RESULTS: 65% were willing to vaccinate, with 27% being in the 'maybe' category. Respondents were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than the 'yes' group when they perceived COVID-19 to be less severe, had less trust in science, were less willing to vaccinate for influenza, and were female. They were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than 'no' group when they perceived COVID-19 as severe, and less likely to be a hoax, had more trust in science, and greater willingness to vaccinate for influenza. A repeat of the survey in November 2020 with a subset of participants found fewer of them saying yes to the vaccine (56%) and more saying maybe (31%). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of any COVID-19 vaccine rollout will be reliant on maximizing uptake. The significant number of people who remain undecided about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine, despite the ongoing devastating consequences of the virus for individuals, communities, and economies, is concerning. Our findings aid current research seeking to inform policy regarding how to convince the undecided to vaccinate.
Authors: Ran D Goldman; Tyler D Yan; Michelle Seiler; Cristina Parra Cotanda; Julie C Brown; Eileen J Klein; Julia Hoeffe; Renana Gelernter; Jeanine E Hall; Adrienne L Davis; Mark A Griffiths; Ahmed Mater; Sergio Manzano; Gianluca Gualco; Naoki Shimizu; Thomas L Hurt; Sara Ahmed; Matt Hansen; David Sheridan; Samina Ali; Graham C Thompson; Nathalie Gaucher; Georg Staubli Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Heidi J Larson; Alexandre de Figueiredo; Zhao Xiahong; William S Schulz; Pierre Verger; Iain G Johnston; Alex R Cook; Nick S Jones Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Jeffrey V Lazarus; Scott C Ratzan; Adam Palayew; Lawrence O Gostin; Heidi J Larson; Kenneth Rabin; Spencer Kimball; Ayman El-Mohandes Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Anne Kavanagh; Helen Dickinson; Stefanie Dimov; Marissa Shields; Ashley McAllister Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.755
Authors: Philipp Sprengholz; Lars Korn; Sarah Eitze; Lisa Felgendreff; Regina Siegers; Laura Goldhahn; Freia De Bock; Lena Huebl; Robert Böhm; Cornelia Betsch Journal: Vaccine Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jennifer D Allen; Wenhui Feng; Laura Corlin; Thalia Porteny; Andrea Acevedo; Deborah Schildkraut; Erin King; Keren Ladin; Qiang Fu; Thomas J Stopka Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2021-07-14