Factors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A cross sectional study in Japan.

The eligibility of COVID-19 vaccines has been expanded to children aged 12 and above in several countries including Japan, and there is a plan to further lower the age. This study aimed to assess factors related to parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A nationwide internet-based cross-sectional study was conducted between May 25 and June 3, 2021 in Japan. The target population was parents of children aged 3-14 years who resided in Japan, and agreed to answer the online questionnaire. Parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (their intention to vaccinate their child) and related factors were analyzed using logistic regression models. Interaction effects of gender of parents and their level of social relationship satisfaction related to parental vaccine hesitancy was tested using log likelihood ratio test (LRT). Social media as the most trusted information source increased parental vaccine hesitancy compared to those who trusted official information (Adjusted Odds Ratio: aOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.53-5.12). Being a mother and low perceived risk of infection also increased parental vaccine hesitancy compared to father (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.57-3.74) and those with higher perceived risk of infection (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.04-2.32) respectively. People with lower satisfaction to social relationships tended to be more hesitant to vaccinate their child among mothers in contrast to fathers who showed constant intention to vaccinate their child regardless of the level of satisfaction to social relationship (LRT p = 0.021). Our findings suggest that dissemination of targeted information about COVID-19 vaccine by considering means of communication, gender and people who are isolated during measures of social distancing may help to increase parental vaccine acceptance.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to increasing cases and death tolls, and strained health care systems across the globe [1]. Regardless of measures to prevent transmission such as hand-washing, mask-wearing, travel restrictions and social distancing, many countries continue to experience surges of cases. In Japan, as of October 25, 2021, the total number of cases and deaths has reached 1,716,938 and 18,199 respectively [2]. Along with the measures to prevent transmission, a COVID-19 vaccination is expected to save countless lives, reduce the burden on healthcare systems and mitigating the outbreak.

COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly developed, and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were approved in Japan on February 14, 2021 and on May 21, 2021 [3]. The vaccine program in Japan launched in February first targeting medical care workers and people aged 65 years and above, and then rolled out to all under 65 in May. In June 2021 the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare expanded eligibility to youth aged 12 and above [4]. As of October 18, 2021, 40.4% of children aged 12 to 19 years completed a second dose of the vaccine while 90.1% of people aged 65 and above [5]. A proportion of new infections occurred in people aged 10 to 30 accounts for more than half of the total population [6]. Therefore, reaching those who remain vaccine hesitant among the younger generation has become increasingly important in order to control the outbreak. The young generation with children who are eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine would have significant influence on their child’ vaccine uptake. To increase the vaccination rate among minors in Japan, parental hesitancy must be considered.

Globally, reasons for vaccine hesitancy among the general public are categorized into (1) the risk-benefit of vaccines, (2) knowledge and awareness issues, (3) religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors, and fear of adverse reaction were cited as major issue [7]. Several studies examined vaccine hesitancy among adults in Japan reported that female, younger age (compared to those aged 65 and above), those with lower socio-economic status and those without perceived risk of infection were more likely to report vaccine hesitancy [8-11]. Along with expansion of the COVID-19 vaccine program to children, it has become important to understand factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccines whether there are factors unique to COVID-19 vaccines. The present study, therefore, aimed to assess the proportion and characteristics of parents who reported hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted according to the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects promulgated by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan. This study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Yamanashi (approval number: 2259). Online informed consent was obtained from all participants who met eligibility criteria after filling in screening questions. Participants clicked the checkbox on the screen online to provide informed consent.

Design and setting

The University of Yamanashi performed a nationwide internet-based cross-sectional study between May 25 and June 3, 2021. The current study is part of a follow-up study that was implemented to evaluate psychological status of caregivers and children in 2020. This study was done during the state of emergency and after the vaccine became available to the general population. Under a “state of emergency”, the government requests people and private entities to restrict travel, commuting, social gatherings, and use of facilities without any legally binding obligations.

Participants

The eligibility criteria were 1) those who had children aged 3–14 years, and 2) those who resided in Japan at the time of inception of the survey. We did not set an age limit for participants. We targeted children under 14 because this group will be more influenced by parental decision compared to older children. Also, COVID-19 vaccine may be expanded to children aged 5 and more in coming years. Participants were recruited from those who had voluntarily registered with a panel of the Nippon Research Center for web-based surveys in response to online affiliate advertising [12]. The Nippon Research Center is a private entity that subcontracts public and private surveys. To respond needs of its customers, it has built several panels and recruited participants from whole nation. As of October 2020, about 1.4 million registered in the panel. Among them, 56% were female, and median age was in 40 [13]. Those who answered screening questions and met the eligibility criteria were asked to participate in the survey. Only those who provided their consent on the website answered the entire questionnaire.

Data collection

The internet-based questionnaire consisted of 43 questions including screening questions related to parents and their children. It was developed under supervision of public health professionals. Data collection was commissioned by the Nippon Research Center. People registered in the panel participated in this survey on a voluntary basis, in response to an invitation. Data collection continued until the sample size reached 1,200. The sample size was considered sufficient to detect a 10% absolute difference in the percentage of participant’s intention to vaccinate their child across different trusted source of news media based on reports of a 20–30% prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in the general population during the pandemic [10,11,14].

If respondents had more than one child within the target age, they were asked to restrict their answers to one child, who was randomly selected by the system.

Outcome

The primary outcome was parents’ intention to vaccinate their child. The parent answered “Yes” or “No” to the question asking whether they would like their child to receive a COVID-19 vaccination when it became available.

Potential factors related to vaccine hesitancy

Factors related to vaccine hesitancy have been reported as demographic factors, socio-economic status, perceived risks and concerns over vaccine safety and effectiveness, perceived risks of COVID-19, sources of information about COVID-19 [14-16]. Parental intention to vaccine themselves was also reported to be a strong factor of willingness to vaccine their children. Accordingly, we selected potential factors for vaccine hesitancy as follows.

Parents’ demographic factors included parents’ gender and age, child’s gender and age, size of residential city, state of emergency declared in the residential area at the time of survey. Socioeconomic factors included job type, partner’s job type, impact of COVID-19 on their work, household income in 2020. We categorized the job type into employed/self-employed, part-time, and unemployed/homemaker/student. Impact of COVID-19 on work was measured as whether a person was fired or had their salary reduced after the outbreak.

Several psychological characteristics were captured. Trusted source of information was asked to choose the most trusted source for information on COVID-19 (Please choose one source of information you trust the most.). Satisfaction regarding social relationships including family, friends and coworkers was measured on a scale ranging from 0 (not satisfied at all) to 10 (very satisfied). Perceived risk of infection was measured with five questions regarding their concerns about getting infected. The perceived risk of infection was recorded high if a parent selected three and more, medium for one or two and low for zero. Distrust of the health care system was measured with three questions regarding their concerns about health system amid of outbreak. Distrust of the health care system was recorded high if a parent selected two and more, medium for one and low for zero. Mental health status was assessed using the Japanese version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) [17,18]. The K6 has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and reliability and is widely used in epidemiological studies [19,20].

Data analysis

The distribution of each variable was analyzed and summarized as number (%) (Table 1). We assessed the association between parent’s intention to vaccinate themselves and intention to vaccinate their child using chi-squared test. We descriptively summarized reasons why parents did not intend to vaccinate themselves. We performed univariate and multivariate analysis to analyze the association between intention to vaccinate child and each of the covariates using logistic regression models. We selected variables to be included in the multivariate model based on a-priori hypothesis, and included all covariates in the model unless there was an evidence of multicollinearity. Finally, we tested interaction in effects of gender of parents and their satisfaction regarding social relationships during the outbreak on parent’s intention to vaccinate their child using log likelihood ratio test. Stratum specific odds ratios (stratified by gender of parents and satisfaction regarding social relationship) and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated. STATA/MP 16.1 software was used for all analyses.

Table 1

Characteristics of study parents in Japan (year 2021) (N = 1,200).

Variable	Number (%)
Intention to vaccine their child
Yes	776 (64.7)
No	424 (35.3)
Intention to vaccinate themselves
Yes	885 (73.8)
No	315 (26.3)
Trusted source of information
Government/public organization	320 (26.7)
Public news media (NHK)	200 (16.7)
Private news media	267 (22.3)
Social media	60 (5.0)
Word of mouths	101 (8.4)
No source	252 (21.0)
Parent’s gender
Male	611 (50.9)
Female	589 (49.1)
Parent’s age (years)
< 34	111 (9.3)
35–39	271 (22.6)
40–45	333 (27.8)
≥ 45	485 (40.4)
Annual household income in 2020 (million yen)
<4	166 (13.8)
4–6	309 (25.8)
≧6	656 (54.7)
Unknown	69 (5.8)
Parent’s job type
Employed/self-employed	750 (62.5)
Part-time	163 (13.6)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	287 (23.9)
Partner’s job type
Employed/self-employed	747 (62.3)
Part-time	211 (17.6)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	196 (16.3)
No partner	46 (3.8)
Parent’s work place
Work at home everyday	125 (10.4)
Work at home half of a week	115 (9.6)
Work away from home	670 (55.8)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	290 (24.2)
Partner’s work place
Work at home everyday	97 (8.1)
Work at home half of a week	95 (7.9)
Work away from home	759 (63.3)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	203 (16.9)
No partner	46 (3.8)
Fired or salary reduction after the outbreak (parent)
No	907 (75.6)
Yes	293 (24.4)
Fired or salary reduction after the outbreak (partner)
No	959 (79.9)
Yes	195 (16.3)
No partner	46 (3.8)
Parent’s satisfaction to the social relationship
High	221 (18.4)
Medium	675 (56.3)
Low	304 (25.3)
Perceived risk of infection
High	512 (42.7)
Medium	458 (38.2)
Low	230 (19.2)
Distrust of the health care system
Low	738 (61.5)
Medium	216 (18.0)
High	246 (20.5)
Parent’s mental distress (K6 score)
None (0–4)	633 (52.8)
Moderate (5–9)	250 (20.8)
Severe (≥ 10)	317 (26.4)
Concerns about household economic situation
High	177 (14.8)
Medium	311 (25.9)
Low	712 (59.3)
Concerns about own and family member’s stress
High	176 (14.7)
Medium	288 (24.0)
Low	736 (61.3)
Concerns about lifestyle of their child
High	151 (12.6)
Medium	204 (17.0)
Low	845 (70.4)
Size of city of residence (population)
< 50,000	149 (12.4)
50,000–100,000	151 (12.6)
100,000–300,000	288 (24.0)
300,000–500,000	155 (12.9)
≥ 500,000	457 (38.1)
State/Semi-state of emergency is declared at the time of survey
Yes	872 (72.7)
No	328 (27.3)
Living with respondent’s/partner’s parents
No	2,300 (95.8)
Yes	100 (4.2)
Number of children living together
1	390 (32.5)
2	621 (51.8)
≥ 3	189 (15.8)
Child’s gender
Male	624 (52.0)
Female	576 (48.0)
Child’s age (years)
3–5	400 (33.3)
6–11	500 (41.7)
≥ 12	300 (25.0)

Results

We requested a total of 2648 people to answer the questionnaire. Among 1745 people who answered screening questions (response rate: 65.9%), we excluded 545 people (Fig 1) because they did not meet eligibility criteria. There were no missing data.

Fig 1

Participant flow.

Among 1,200 parents, 424 (35.3%) did not intend to vaccinate their child and 315 (26.3%) themselves when the vaccine became available (Table 1). About half of the parents were women (49.1%). The most trusted source of information regarding COVID-19 was government/public organization (26.7%) followed by private news media (22.3%). About one quarter of parents (24.4%) and 16.3% of their partners experienced loss of job or salary reduction. One fifth (19.2%) had low level of perceived risk of infection.

There was a strong relationship between intention to vaccinate themselves and their children (chi-squared test: p<0.001), and only 10.8% of those who did not want to vaccinate themselves had intention to vaccinate their children while 83.8% of those who wanted to vaccinate themselves did (Table 2). The main reason of having no intention to vaccinate themselves was fear of adverse reaction and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (201/315) (Fig 2).

Table 2

Association between parents’ intention to vaccinate themselves and intention to vaccinate their child in Japan (year 2021) (N = 1,200).

	Intention to vaccinate their child		p-value (Chi-square test)
	Yes	No
Intention to vaccinate themselves
Yes	742 (83.8)	143 (16.2)	<0.001
No	34 (10.8)	281 (89.2)
Total	776 (64.7)	424 (35.3)

The numbers are number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Fig 2

Reason of having no intention to vaccinate themselves (N = 315).

The univariate analyses showed that trust in sources of COVID-19 related information other than government/public organization or public news media, female gender either of parent or child, younger age of parent (<34 years), lower household income, unemployment, lower perceived risk of infection and younger age of children were associated with higher odds of parental vaccine hesitancy (Table 3). After adjusting for covariates, social media as a trusted source of information, being a mother, lower perceived risk of infection and younger age of children were still associated with higher odds of parental vaccine hesitancy. Compared to those who trusted official information, those who trusted social media as a source of information were three times more likely to show no intention to vaccinate their child (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.53–5.12). Mothers and people with low perceived risk of infection were twice the time more likely to report vaccine hesitancy compared to fathers (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.57–3.74) and those who had high perceived risk of infection (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.04–2.32) respectively.

Table 3

Crude and adjusted odds ratios of having no intention to vaccine their child (N = 1,200).

Variable	Crude OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR1 (95% CI)
Trusted source of information
Government/public organization	1.00	1.00
Public news media (NHK)	0.97 (0.64–1.45)	1.06 (0.69–1.63)
Private news media	1.45 (1.02–2.07)	1.49 (1.01–2.19)
Social media	3.32 (1.88–5.84)	2.80 (1.53–5.12)
Word of mouths	2.63 (1.65–4.18)	2.41 (1.46–3.95)
No source	2.77 (1.95–3.94)	2.87 (1.94–4.26)
Parent’s gender
Male	1.00	1.00
Female	2.51 (1.97–3.21)	2.43 (1.57–3.74)
Parent’s age (years)
< 34	1.00	1.00
35–39	0.63 (0.41–0.99)	1.61 (0.96–2.71)
40–45	0.52 (0.34–0.81)	1.11 (0.76–1.62)
≥ 45	0.35 (0.23–0.53)	1.06 (0.76–1.49)
Annual household income in 2020 (million yen)
<4	1.43 (1.01–2.03)	1.09 (0.69–1.70)
4–6	1.35 (1.02–1.79)	1.19 (0.86–1.66)
≧6	1.00	1.00
Unknown	2.72 (1.64–4.49)	1.91 (1.09–3.34)
Parent’s job type
Employed/self-employed	1.00	1.00
Part-time	1.23 (0.87–1.77)	0.63 (0.40–1.00)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	2.19 (1.66–2.90)	1.08 (0.73–1.61)
Partner’s job type
Employed/self-employed	1.00	1.00
Part-time	0.51 (0.36–0.72)	0.95 (0.61–1.46)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	0.42 (0.29–0.60)	0.68 (0.43–1.07)
No partner	1.11 (0.61–2.03)	0.90 (0.44–1.83)
Parent’s work place
Work at home everyday	1.00	-2
Work at home half of a week	0.69 (0.38–1.24)
Work away from home	1.23 (0.81–1.88)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	2.31 (1.47–3.62)
Partner’s work place
Work at home everyday	1.00	-2
Work at home half of a week	1.08 (0.60–1.95)
Work away from home	1.15 (0.74–1.78)
Unemployed/homemaker/student	0.53 (0.31–0.90)
No partner	1.43 (0.70–2.92)
Fired or salary reduction after the outbreak (parent)
No	1.00	1.00
Yes	0.97 (0.74–1.28)	1.22 (0.86–1.73)
Fired or salary reduction after the outbreak (partner)
No	1.00	1.00
Yes	0.94 (0.68–1.30)	0.66 (0.44–1.00)
Parent’s satisfaction to the social relationship
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	1.02 (0.74–1.40)	1.04 (0.73–1.47)
Low	1.05 (0.73–1.50)	0.96 (0.63–1.45)
Perceived risk of infection
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	0.87 (0.66–1.14)	1.02 (0.73–1.42)
Low	1.47 (1.07–2.02)	1.55 (1.04–2.32)
Distrust of the health care system
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	1.27 (0.87–1.86)	1.15 (0.73–1.42)
Low	1.14 (0.84–1.55)	1.03 (0.69–1.51)
Parent’s mental distress (K6 score)
None (0–4)	1.00	1.00
Moderate (5–9)	0.99 (0.73–1.36)	0.96 (0.68–1.36)
Severe (≥ 10)	1.16 (0.88–1.53)	1.05 (0.74–1.47)
Concerns about household economic situation
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	0.91 (0.62–1.33)	0.81 (0.52–1.25)
Low	0.90 (0.64–1.27)	0.81 (0.52–1.26)
Concerns about own and family member’s stress
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	1.34 (0.90–1.99)	1.29 (0.82–2.04)
Low	1.26 (0.88–1.79)	1.23 (0.79–1.93)
Concerns about lifestyle of their child
High	1.00	1.00
Medium	0.67 (0.43–1.05)	0.62 (0.37–1.02)
Low	0.95 (0.66–1.35)	0.90 (0.58–1.40)
Size of city of residence (population)
< 50,000	1.00	1.00
50,000–100,000	1.17 (0.81–1.71)	1.13 (0.74–1.72)
100,000–300,000	1.10 (0.81–1.49)	1.12 (0.78–1.59)
300,000–500,000	1.00 (0.68–1.48)	0.95 (0.61–1.48)
≥ 500,000	0.99 (0.67–1.47)	0.78 (0.49–1.25)
State/Semi-state of emergency is declared at the time of survey
Yes	1.00	1.00
No	0.93 (0.71–1.22)	0.90 (0.66–1.25)
Living with parents
No	1.00	1.00
Yes	1.13 (0.74–1.73)	1.42 (0.88–2.28)
Number of children living together
1	1.00	1.00
2	1.16 (0.89–1.51)	1.15 (0.86–1.55)
≥ 3	0.93 (0.64–1.35)	0.88 (0.58–1.34)
Child’s gender
Male	1.00	1.00
Female	1.27 (1.00–1.61)	1.26 (0.97–1.63)
Child’s age (years)
3–5	1.00	1.00
6–11	0.64 (0.49–0.85)	0.72 (0.52–0.99)
≥ 12	0.48 (0.35–0.67)	0.57 (0.38–0.85)

OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval.

1Adjusted for all other variables in the table.

2Omitted due to multicollinearity.

The effect of parent’s satisfaction regarding social relationship on intention to vaccinate their child varied by parent’s gender (LRT: p = 0.021) (Table 4). While fathers had constant or more intention to vaccinate their child at the lower level of satisfaction, mothers were more likely to hesitate to vaccinate their child when they had lower satisfaction regarding social relationship (Fig 3).

Table 4

Adjusted odds ratios of having no intention to vaccinate their child in relation to parent’s satisfaction to the social relationship by their gender (N = 1,200).

Variable	Adjusted OR (95% CI)		p-value (LRT)
	Parent’s gender
	Male	Female
Parent’s satisfaction to the social relationship
High	1.00	1.29 (0.65–2.55)	0.021
Low/Medium	0.66 (0.40–1.07)	1.86 (1.03–3.37)

OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, LRT: Likelihood ratio test.

Fig 3

Adjusted odds ratios of having no intention to vaccinate their child in relation to parent’s satisfaction to the social relationship by their gender in Japan (year 2021).

Discussion

The present study showed that high agreement between parent’s intention to vaccinate themselves and their child, which is in line with a previous study [21]. On the other hand, about 16.2% of parents who wanted to get vaccinated themselves did not intend to vaccinate their child. This indicates that promoting parent’s acceptance by providing information may lead to wider coverage of vaccination for children.

The present study showed that trust in resources other than public information, being a mother and low perceived risk of infection were associated with parental hesitancy to vaccinate their child. The results are in line with previous studies that examined vaccine hesitancy among the general population and parents. Several studies reported that distrust in public information and use of social media were associated with vaccine hesitancy [14,22,23]. Misinformation is shared and rapidly circulated on social media. People supporting anti-vaccination on Twitter tended to believe conspiracy theories and engage in the community [24]. Although media specific behavior have been reported [14,23], the present study was not able to identify which social media was associate with parental vaccine hesitancy.

Several studies reported women were less likely to be willing to vaccinate their child [25-27]. Also women were more likely to hesitate to vaccinate themselves globally [15,28]. Although the present study did not have data to assess reasons of the gender difference, it may be due to fear of adverse reaction. Women have more chance to experience adverse reaction, and there are unreliable news about the relationship between vaccination and infertility [29]. Interestingly, the results showed that the gender difference related to vaccine hesitancy attenuated when mothers had high satisfaction regarding social relationship. It has been reported that social-distancing and increased anxiety due to the pandemic has increased internet use globally [30,31]. Increased use of smartphones was associated with increased game use among men while increased use of social networking services was observed among women [32,33]. This may explain why women who had limited social relationships tended to spend more time using social media and obtained vaccine-related information via social network. The reasons leading to this significant gender difference need to be further investigated, and gender-specific communication strategies to promote vaccination among children should be considered.

The strength of this study is that the study covered the whole nation and focused on parents with children. While studies on parental vaccine hesitancy is limited in Japan, the COVID-19 vaccine program was recently expanded to children >12 years of age. The findings will be useful to promote vaccination in the country. However, the present study is not without limitations. Owing to the nature of the data collection via an internet-based survey and participation is on voluntary basis, this study is subject to selection bias. Generalizability may be limited, as those who participated may be more interested in the COVID-19 vaccine and have different attitude toward the vaccination. Also, those who had access to internet might be different from those who did not. Therefore, the percentage of vaccine hesitancy may not be representative of the general population, however, identified factors related to vaccine hesitancy can be used to consider targeting people who have active access to internet. Secondly, this study did not ask details about which social media was mainly used though some studies reported that effect on vaccine hesitancy varied by different types of social media such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter [14,23]. Regardless of the limitations, the results were consistent with findings in other countries, which support reliability of the findings.

Although children have been considered to develop mild symptoms compared to adults, recent studies have reported that COVID-19-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome can cause morbidity and mortality [34,35]. The recent rapid increase of cases among children could lead to an increase of severe cases in this age group. Rapid expansion of vaccine coverage including children is important to protect individuals as well as communities.

To address parental vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to consider how to disseminate correct information other than through public channels to reach people who seek information from social media. Government officials should consider new channels such as social media including collaboration with influencers to disseminate information other than traditional methods such as posting message on their homepages. We also found that mothers are more likely to hesitate to vaccinate their children than fathers, especially among people who had lower satisfaction to social relationship. Therefore, healthcare professionals and government officials need to carefully consider this gender difference, and provide targeted information especially for those who are likely to be socially isolated due to measures of social distancing.

Conclusion

The results showed trust in social media as source of information, being a mother, and lower perceived risk of infection was related to higher risk of parental vaccine hesitancy. The gender difference attenuated among parents with high satisfaction toward social relationships. It is necessary to consider how to disseminate correct information other than through public channels to reach people who seek information from social media. Also, healthcare professionals and local government officials need to carefully consider the gender difference and provide targeted information.

Questionnaire, English translation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Minimal data set.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-34773Factors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a cross sectional study in JapanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horiuchi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 November 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bijaya Kumar Padhi, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Additional Editor Comments:

This manuscript investigates parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its associated factors in Japan. The study has a valid research question and hypothesis. Language and and presentation are clear and adequate, figures and tables are in line with scientific norms and standards. I commend the authors for conceptualizing this study, as the findings certainly add value to the literature. I have following comments:

Psychometrics of the survey instruments should be provided.

Authors said they used multiple logistic regression model. However, there is a lack of clarity on what basis the model was built. Whether they used a-priori hypothesis or any stepwise input of parameters. This information should be provided in data analysis section.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This subject is absolutely essential for disease prevention and socio-behavioral health.

Introduction

Well written

Methods

The participant section provides the detailed registration system of the Nippon Research Center. What is the objective of the registration? Which types of communities are registering? Are both parents reporting? Till the study, how many registered? As it is voluntary, registration may be for those who have positive motivation, they registered. How did you justify your representation of sampling? If possible, clarify, otherwise mention this in limitation.

In the data collection section: 1200 is a good sample. How did you select this sample from the register? What is your target population?

Results

In line 180

Intention to vaccinate themselves (parent), since adult vaccination started long back, it is good to presented vaccinated versus non-vaccinated (why intention to vaccinate) – present parent practice rather than their attitude. Then you can associate parent vaccination status with intension to vaccinate their child.

Table 3. Reason of having no intention to vaccinate themselves (N = 315) – present the finding using a figure (pi chart).

Combine Table 1 and Table 4 (The variable which described in one table describe it in text)

Table 1. Characteristics of study parents in Japan (year 2021) (N = 1,200)

Table 4. Crude and adjusted odds ratios of having no intention to vaccine their child 202 (N = 1,200)

Discussion

Add one paragraph on Implication for policy and practice

Reviewer #2: the manuscript s well written with the methodology, results section in aligment to the objective. the discussion part is throughly written and well explained. one suggestion in the analysis section is while looking at level of social relationship satisfaction related to parental vaccine hesitancy, high satifaction can be kept as reference

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahoo, ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar, India

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Nov 2021

Dear Dr Bijaya Kumar Padhi:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript to PLOS ONE titled “Factors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a cross sectional study in Japan.” We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers and have indicated the changes within the manuscript in red font. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reply: We have carefully reviewed the guidelines and revised the manuscript accordingly.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Reply: We confirm that minors were not included in the study participants. We have added explanation on online informed consent as follows.

Lines 84-85 “Participants clicked the checkbox on the screen online to provide informed consent.”

Additional Editor Comments:

This manuscript investigates parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its associated factors in Japan. The study has a valid research question and hypothesis. Language and and presentation are clear and adequate, figures and tables are in line with scientific norms and standards. I commend the authors for conceptualizing this study, as the findings certainly add value to the literature. I have following comments:

1. Psychometrics of the survey instruments should be provided.

2. Authors said they used multiple logistic regression model. However, there is a lack of clarity on what basis the model was built. Whether they used a-priori hypothesis or any stepwise input of parameters. This information should be provided in data analysis section.

Reply: We appreciate your feedback.

1. We have added the survey instrument as a supporting information file.

2. We selected covariates based on a-priori hypotheses, and attempted to include all of them variables in the multivariate analysis. Finally, two variables were excluded from the model due to multicolinearity. We have added explanation as follows.

Lines 157-159 “We selected variables to be included in the multivariate model based on a-priori hypothesis, and included all covariates in the model unless there was an evidence of multicollinearity.”

Reviewer 1:

This subject is absolutely essential for disease prevention and socio-behavioral health.

Introduction

Well written

Methods

The participant section provides the detailed registration system of the Nippon Research Center. What is the objective of the registration? Which types of communities are registering? Are both parents reporting?

Reply: The Nippon Research Center is a private entity that subcontracts public and private surveys. To respond needs of its customers, it has built several panels and recruited participants from whole nation. This time, we used the panel for web-based surveys.

Only one parent answered the survey. To avoid confusion, we have rephrased parents into other words in the participants section as follows.

Lines 95-97 “The eligibility criteria were 1) those who had children aged 3–14 years, and 2) those who resided in Japan at the time of inception of the survey. We did not set an age limit for participants.”

Lines 101-104 “The Nippon Research Center is a private entity that subcontracts public and private surveys. To respond needs of its customers, it has built several panels and recruited participants from whole nation.”

Till the study, how many registered?

Reply: Information of the panel has been added as follows.

Line 104 “As of October 2020, about 1.4 million registered in the panel.”

As it is voluntary, registration may be for those who have positive motivation, they registered. How did you justify your representation of sampling? If possible, clarify, otherwise mention this in limitation.

Reply: We agree that the selected participants were not representative of the Japanese population due to nature of the internet survey. We have included this point as limitation.

Lines 263-270 “Owing to the nature of the data collection via an internet-based survey and participation is on voluntary basis, this study is subject to selection bias. Generalizability may be limited, as those who participated may be more interested in the COVID-19 vaccine and have different attitude toward the vaccination. Also, those who had access to internet might be different from those who did not. Therefore, the percentage of vaccine hesitancy may not be representative of the general population, however, identified factors related to vaccine hesitancy can be used to consider targeting people who have active access to internet.”

In the data collection section: 1200 is a good sample. How did you select this sample from the register? What is your target population?

Reply: Participation to this survey was on voluntary basis. We asked people registered in the panel to join this survey and continued recruitment until the number reached 1200.

Lines 112-113 “People registered in the panel participated in this survey on a voluntary basis in response to an invitation. Data collection continued until the sample size reached 1,200.”

Results

In line 180

Intention to vaccinate themselves (parent), since adult vaccination started long back, it is good to presented vaccinated versus non-vaccinated (why intention to vaccinate) – present parent practice rather than their attitude. Then you can associate parent vaccination status with intension to vaccinate their child.

Table 3. Reason of having no intention to vaccinate themselves (N = 315) – present the finding using a figure (pi chart).

Reply: We appreciated your suggestion. As we did not have data on vaccine status, it is impossible to analyze data based on parental vaccination status. The eligibility of the COVID-19 vaccine was expanded to people under 65 years of age in May 2021. As this survey was conducted May 25 and June 3, 2021, we decided to ask intention to vaccine assuming that the proportion of vaccinated was very low at the time of survey.

We have added “Fig2 Reason of having no intention to vaccinate themselves (N = 315)” according to your suggestion.

Combine Table 1 and Table 4 (The variable which described in one table describe it in text)

Table 1. Characteristics of study parents in Japan (year 2021) (N = 1,200)

Table 4. Crude and adjusted odds ratios of having no intention to vaccine their child 202 (N = 1,200)

Reply: We appreciate your suggestion, however, we are afraid that, if combined, Table will get very large and difficult to see for readers. We, therefore, would like to keep separate tables for reporting characteristics of participants and odds ratios. We hope it will be acceptable.

Discussion

Add one paragraph on Implication for policy and practice

Reply: We have added the following sentences in the last paragraph of the discussion section.

Lines 281-290 “To address parental vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to consider how to disseminate correct information other than through public channels to reach people who seek information from social media. Government officials should consider new channels such as social media including collaboration with influencers to disseminate information other than traditional methods such as posting message on their homepages. We also found that mothers are more likely to hesitate to vaccinate their children than fathers, especially among people who had lower satisfaction to social relationship. Therefore, healthcare professionals and government officials need to carefully consider this gender difference, and provide targeted information especially for those who are likely to be socially isolated due to measures of social distancing.”

Reviewer 2:

the manuscript s well written with the methodology, results section in aligment to the objective. the discussion part is throughly written and well explained. one suggestion in the analysis section is while looking at level of social relationship satisfaction related to parental vaccine hesitancy, high satifaction can be kept as reference

Reply: We appreciate your insightful suggestion. To make a reference group as the group at the lowest risk of vaccine hesitancy like other variables in the model, we set the high satisfaction group as reference for univariate, multivariate logistic models as well as interaction analyses. In the interaction analysis, we combined low and middle satisfaction groups to make the statistical analyses stable. The revised results are shown in table 4 and figure 3.

Lines 35-38 “People with lower satisfaction to social relationships tended to be more hesitant to vaccinate their child among mothers in contrast to fathers who showed constant or lower hesitancy to vaccinate their child in the lower satisfaction group (LRT p=0.021).”

Lines 216-219 “While fathers had constant or more intention to vaccinate their child at the lower level of satisfaction, mothers were more likely to hesitate to vaccinate their child when they had lower satisfaction regarding social relationship (Figure 3).”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 Nov 2021

Factors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a cross sectional study in Japan

PONE-D-21-34773R1

Dear Dr. Horiuchi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bijaya Kumar Padhi, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit to meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria.

Reviewers' comments:

9 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-34773R1

Factors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a cross sectional study in Japan

Dear Dr. Horiuchi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bijaya Kumar Padhi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE