The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France.

Equal Access to the COVID-19 vaccine for all remains a major public health issue. The current study compared the prevalence of vaccination reluctance in general and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and social and health factors associated with intentions to receive the vaccine. A random socio-epidemiological population-based survey was conducted in France in November 2020, in which 85,855 adults participants were included in this study. We used logistic regressions to study being "not at all in favor" to vaccination in general, and being "certainly not" willing to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Our analysis highlighted a gendered reluctance toward vaccination in general but even more so regarding vaccination against COVID-19 (OR = 1.88 (95% CI: 1.79-1.97)). We also found that people at the bottom of the social hierarchy, in terms of level of education, financial resources, were more likely to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine (from OR = 1.22 (95% CI:1.10-1.35) for respondents without diploma to OR = 0.52 (95% CI:0.47-0.57) for High school +5 or more years level). People from the French overseas departments, immigrants and descendants of immigrants, were all more reluctant to the Covid-19 vaccine (first-generation Africa/Asia immigrants OR = 1.16 (95% CI:1.04-1.30)) versus OR = 2.19 (95% CI:1.96-2.43) for the majority population). Finally, our analysis showed that those who reported not trusting the government were more likely to be Covid-19 vaccine-reluctant (OR = 3.29 (95% CI: 3.13-3.45)). Specific campaigns should be thought beforehand to reach women and people at the bottom of the social hierarchy to avoid furthering social inequalities in terms of morbidity and mortality.

Introduction

Long referred to as the land of Pasteur, France has recently acquired the image of a nation inherently hostile to vaccination, especially since the late 1990’s. In 2015, only 52% of French people considered the seasonal flu vaccine to be safe, compared with 85% in the United Kingdom and 80% in Spain [1]. Surveys launched between October and December 2020 confirmed this reputation when it comes to Covid-19 [2]: only 44% of French people were willing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if they had the opportunity, less than in Germany (65%), Italy (70%), or the United Kingdom (81%), and half as much as in China (91%). France is therefore both one of the countries with the lowest level of acceptance of vaccination in general [3] and the Covid-19 vaccine in particular. It makes it an ideal case to study whether the hostility to the Covid-19 vaccine has its own reasons or whether it is related to a reluctance to the principle of vaccination itself.

In addition to the unprecedented and global nature of this pandemic, the rapid development of the vaccine was a first characteristic likely to arouse public distrust [4]. It was, indeed, the first time in the world’s vaccine history that a product was developed in such a short time period, less than a year after the first cases. This contrasted dramatically with the last major pandemic, HIV-AIDS, for which, despite the stakes, no vaccine is still available more than three decades after the outbreak. The race for vaccines has resulted in several competing prototypes. The first one to be available on the market, as of December 8, 2020, was developed using messenger RNA technology, which had never before been used as a mode of protection against an epidemic. The introduction of this new technology, whose potential short- and long-term side effects have been widely discussed in the media, may have influenced the willingness to be vaccinated. Another particularity of the Covid-19 vaccine campaign was the strong implication of governments in the procurement of products and in the choice of the prototype. In France, hostility toward the Covid-19 vaccine could be explained by distrust in the government’s actions [5] and in foreign pharmaceutical laboratories [6], since no French company produced a vaccine against Covid-19.

These specificities of the Covid-19 vaccination may have had a different impact on vaccination intentions between social groups, which is important to study in order to better target vaccination campaigns.

To study vaccine reluctance, it is important to distinguish vaccine refusal from vaccine hesitancy, defined as "a kind of decision-making process that depends on people’s level of commitment to healthism/risk culture and on their level of confidence in the health authorities and mainstream medicine" [7]. Different positions toward vaccination can be articulated: the same individual can be hesitant about vaccines in general but hostile to vaccination against Covid-19, or favorable to vaccines in general but hesitant about vaccination against Covid-19. The challenge here was to account for these different combinations, by correlating them with people’s social characteristics.

Our objective was to analyze the social determinants of Covid-19 vaccination reluctance, distinguishing between what related to vaccine distrust in general and what related specifically to the Covid-19 vaccine [8]. The analysis was conducted from an intersectional perspective [9] that simultaneously took into account gender, class, age, and ethno-racial social characteristics, as well as respondents’ level of trust in the government.

This study was based on a large-scale random survey of 107,808 people conducted between October 26 and December 9, 2020, a pivotal time, as Pfizer announced on November 9, 2020, that it would be able to produce a 90% effective vaccine on a large scale.

Materials and methods

The EpiCoV study

The EpiCoV (Epidémiologie et Conditions de Vie) cohort was set-up in April 2020, with the general aim of understanding the main epidemiological, social and behavioural issues related to the Covid-19 epidemic in France. The survey was approved by the CNIL (French independent administrative authority responsible for data protection) on April 25th 2020 (ref: MLD/MFI/AR205138) and by the “Comité de protection des personnes” (French equivalent of the Research Ethics Committee) on April 24th. The survey also obtained an agreement from the “Comité du Label de la statistique publique”, proving its adequacy to statistical quality standards.

A stratified random sample of 135,000 people aged 15 and over, was drawn from the tax database of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), which covers 96% of the population living in France but excludes people living in institutional settings, participated in a first wave of the study in May 2020. People belonging to the lowest decile of income were over-represented. A total of 134,391 respondents participated in the first wave of the study (May 2020). A second wave was conducted in November 2020, including questions on attitudes toward vaccination. Respondents who took part in the first wave of the study were invited to take part in this second wave. In all, 107,808 respondents participated in this second wave (81.7% of the respondents of the first wave of the study). Individuals were invited to answer the questionnaire online, or by phone for those who did not have Internet access. Furthermore, a random sample of 10% of people with Internet access was interviewed by phone in order to take into account a method collection effect. The results published in the study have been adjusted by applying the weights established by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) and marginal recalibration in the survey and sampling design to correct for non-participation, so as to produce estimators that are representative of the population. More information about the cohort can be found in another publication [10].

Sample information

We focused on people living in metropolitan France, aged 18 and over and likely to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated (N = 101,112). We chose not to include people who tested positive for Covid-19 (N = 4,036) and whose intention to be vaccinated could be influenced by this fact. Therefore, 85,855 individuals were included in the analysis (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flowchart of the national EpiCoV cohort, round 1 (May 2020) and round 2 (November 2020).

Outcome measures

To study attitudes toward vaccination in the EpiCoV survey in November 2020, two questions were available. One was about vaccination in general (Are you strongly, somewhat, somewhat not, or not at all in favor of vaccinations in general?) and the other was specifically about the Covid-19 vaccine (If a free vaccine against coronavirus was offered by the Sécurité Sociale (the French social security system), would you be willing to get vaccinated? Yes probably, yes maybe, probably not, certainly not, or you do not know).

Social variables

To describe the sample, six sociodemographic variables were considered: age, gender, ethno-racial status (based on migration history), social class (based on current or last occupation), standard of living (based on decile of household income per consumption unit), and formal education level.

Ethno-racial status was defined by combining the criteria of place of birth, nationality, and status of the individual and both parents:

Majority population: Persons born in Metropolitan France who are neither first nor second-generation immigrants

FOD: Persons or at least one parent born in French Overseas Departments

First-generation EU: First-generation immigrants coming from EU27

Second-generation EU: Second-generation immigrants with immigrant parent coming from the EU27

First generation Africa/Asia: First-generation immigrants coming from Africa or Asia

Second-generation Africa/Asia: Second-generation immigrants with immigrant parent coming from Africa or Asia

Statistical analyses

We first described the cross-tabulation of attitudes toward vaccination in general by attitudes toward the Covid-19 vaccine. We then presented the distribution of social characteristics for each attitude toward vaccination in general and toward the Covid-19 vaccine.

We then conducted logistic regressions on being "not at all in favor" to vaccination in general, and on being "certainly not" willing to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

The percentages presented are weighted to account for the sample design. The figures in the tables are not weighted.

All analyses were performed with the R software (1.3.959). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Given the sample size, the observed differences were consistently statistically significant. Therefore, no tests are presented for univariable analyses.

Results

When crossing the question regarding vaccination in general with the question regarding the Covid-19 vaccine, a strong link between the two attitudes emerged, though not without variations (Table 1).

Table 1

Attitudes toward vaccination in general by attitudes toward the Covid-19 vaccine.

		If a free vaccine against coronavirus was offered by the Sécurité Sociale (the French social security system), would you be willing to get vaccinated?
		Yes probably	Yes maybe	Probably not	Certainly not	You do not know	Total
Are you strongly, somewhat, somewhat not, or not at all in favor of vaccinations in general?	Strongly in favor	16062 (73.2)	3411(16.6)	468 (2.2)	386 (2.3)	993 (5.7)	21320 (100)
	Somewhat in favor	12607 (29.9)	16190 (38.6)	3901 (8.5)	2705 (6.7)	6324 (16.3)	41727 (100)
	Somewhat not in favor	928 (6.4)	3321 (22.8)	3947 (25)	3242 (21.4)	3408 (24.4)	14846 (100)
	Not at all in favor	227 (3.9)	524 (7.6)	1144 (12.7)	4723 (57.6)	1344 (18.2)	7962 (100)
Total		29824 (33.2)	23446 (27.2)	9460 (10.3)	11056 (13.9)	12069 (15.4)	85855(100)

Almost three quarters of people who were strongly in favor of vaccination in general reported they were willing to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Those who were somewhat in favor of vaccination in general were also more likely to be willing to be vaccinated against Covid-19: more than two thirds of them reported they would perhaps (“Yes probably” or “Yes maybe”) get the shot. This was not the case for those who reported they were somewhat not in favor of vaccination in general: 21.4% of them declared they would most likely not get vaccinated against Covid-19, and a quarter of them said they did not know. Those who were not at all in favor of vaccination in general, however, had a stronger position toward the Covid-19 vaccine: more than half of them were determined not to be vaccinated against Covid-19.

Attitudes toward the Covid-19 vaccine seemed to be more definite and socially differentiated (Table 2) than toward vaccination in general (Table 3). Hesitants (those who are “Somewhat in favor” or “Somewhat not in favor” of vaccination in general) made up for more 65% of attitudes toward vaccination in general, whereas only 52% of respondents were unsure of their attitudes toward the Covid-19 vaccine. In both cases, men were more inclined to vaccination than women, and the gender gap was much wider for the Covid-19 vaccine (39.7% of men versus 27.3% of women) than for vaccination in general (26.7% of men versus and 21.3% of women)

Table 2

Social characteristics associated with attitudes regarding the Covid-19 vaccine.

	Yes probably	Yes maybe	Probably not	Certainly not	You do not know	Total
Total	29824 (33.2)	23446 (27.2)	9460 (10.3)	11056 (13.9)	12069 (15.4)	85855 (100)
----------Sex:
Men	16702 (39.7)	10865 (27.9)	3468 (8.7)	3707 (11)	4282 (12.7)	39024 (48)
Women	13122 (27.3)	12581 (26.5)	5992 (11.8)	7349 (16.6)	7787 (17.8)	46831 (52)
----------Age:
18–24	2892 (31.8)	2276 (25.8)	991 (11)	1440 (18)	1091 (13.4)	8690 (10.6)
25–34	2428 (23.3)	2659 (25.4)	1623 (14.9)	2237 (22.4)	1361 (13.9)	10308 (13.3)
35–44	3972 (25.3)	3971 (26.1)	2135 (13.8)	2550 (18.5)	2151 (16.3)	14779 (15.7)
45–54	5168 (29.3)	4650 (27.6)	2029 (11.6)	2141 (14.4)	2670 (17.2)	16658 (16.5)
55–64	5747 (33.4)	4694 (30.2)	1538 (9.4)	1534 (10.8)	2376 (16.3)	15889 (15.8)
+ 65	9617 (45.1)	5196 (27.1)	1144 (5.8)	1154 (7.3)	2420 (14.7)	19531 (28.1)
----------Formal education:
No diploma	1273 (28.8)	1198 (27.5)	355 (7.4)	724 (16.1)	869 (20.2)	4419 (10.8)
Primary education	2507 (35.8)	1911 (27.5)	587 (7.6)	746 (10.9)	1118 (18.1)	6869 (12.4)
Vocational secondary	5052 (29.7)	4636 (27)	1619 (9.2)	2495 (15.9)	3110 (18.2)	16912 (21.1)
High school	5867 (30.7)	4952 (26.4)	2273 (12)	2865 (16.1)	2648 (14.8)	18605 (20.8)
High school + 2 to 4 years	8502 (33.1)	6963 (27.8)	3158 (12.5)	3148 (13.5)	3166 (13.1)	24937 (23)
High school + 5 or more years	6623 (45.6)	3786 (26.9)	1468 (10.6)	1078 (8.4)	1158 (8.5)	14113 (11.9)
----------Social class:
Farmers	430 (35.1)	348 (27.8)	121 (8.4)	140 (10.9)	188 (17.8)	1227 (2)
Self-employed and entrepreneurs	1797 (36.7)	1229 (25.7)	529 (9.7)	652 (13.5)	655 (14.4)	4862 (6.5)
Senior executive professionals	10216 (46)	5861 (26.5)	2103 (9.6)	1626 (8.2)	1955 (9.8)	21761 (18.9)
Middle executive professionals	6065 (33.2)	5115 (28.7)	2075 (11.2)	2230 (13.1)	2408 (13.8)	17893 (18.3)
Employees	5871 (26.7)	6104 (27.2)	2798 (11.5)	3649 (16.6)	4007 (18)	22429 (27.6)
Manual workers	2632 (27.7)	2631 (26.9)	1015 (9.3)	1667 (17.2)	1760 (18.9)	9705 (16.3)
Never worked and others	2813 (33.5)	2158 (26.6)	819 (9.4)	1092 (14.5)	1096 (15.9)	7978 (10.5)
----------Standard of living (in deciles):
D1	1747 (27.5)	1501 (24.8)	635 (9.2)	1117 (19.4)	1056 (19)	6056 (8.2)
D2-D3	2817 (27.1)	2714 (25.8)	1234 (10.6)	1940 (17.9)	1870 (18.7)	10575 (18.1)
D4-D5	3765 (29)	3659 (26.7)	1655 (10.7)	2273 (16.7)	2204 (16.9)	13556 (20)
D6-D7	5705 (31.6)	5183 (28.6)	2177 (11.1)	2499 (13.4)	2704 (15.4)	18268 (21.4)
D8-D9	9198 (38)	6893 (28.5)	2633 (10.5)	2374 (10)	3059 (12.9)	24157 (21.9)
D10	6592 (49.7)	3496 (26.3)	1126 (8.3)	853 (6.7)	1176 (9)	13243 (10.5)
----------Ethno-racial status:
Majority population	25375 (34.4)	19663 (27.3)	8094 (10.8)	8823 (13.3)	9508 (14.3)	71463 (79.1)
Born or parents born in FODa	243 (23.4)	242 (25.6)	129 (12.2)	225 (23.7)	157 (15.2)	996 (1.3)
Second generation Europe	1591 (32.4)	1251 (27.1)	480 (9.3)	634 (14.3)	749 (16.9)	4705 (5.6)
Second generation Africa/Asia	751 (24.9)	667 (22.8)	327 (10.8)	588 (21.6)	541 (19.9)	2874 (4.1)
First generation Europe	1041 (35.8)	750 (27.9)	189 (5.9)	331 (14)	419 (16.3)	2730 (4.1)
First generation Africa/Asia	823 (24.9)	873 (28)	241 (7.4)	455 (14.8)	695 (25)	3087 (5.9)
---------- Lives with their children or partner’s children:
At least a child	9684 (26.7)	9220 (26.8)	4372 (12.3)	5292 (17.4)	5111 (16.9)	33679 (35.5)
No child	20140 (36.9)	14226 (27.4)	5088 (9.2)	5764 (12)	6958 (14.6)	52176 (64.5)
----------Regarding the possibility of contracting the virus in the coming months, would you say that you are afraid of contracting it and being seriously ill?
Yes	8842 (42.4)	5616 (27.6)	1477 (6.8)	1607 (8.9)	2626 (14.2)	20168 (24.1)
No	20982 (30.3)	17830 (27)	7983 (11.4)	9449 (15.5)	9443 (15.7)	65687 (75.9)
----------To limit the spread of the coronavirus, do you trust the government’s action?:
Yes	19254 (42.6)	12656 (29.7)	3663 (7.8)	2764 (6.9)	5064 (12.9)	43401 (49.2)
No	8777 (24.9)	8674 (24.7)	4910 (13.8)	7117 (22.4)	4647 (14.3)	34125 (39.4)
You do not know	1793 (21.5)	2116 (25)	887 (9.3)	1175 (14.8)	2358 (29.5)	8329 (11.5)
----------Do you have any COVID comorbidities?:
Yes	10456 (38.1)	6945 (26.9)	2288 (8.1)	2773 (11.7)	3542 (15.2)	26004 (33.1)
No	19368 (30.8)	16501 (27.3)	7172 (11.4)	8283 (15)	8527 (15.4)	59851 (66.9)

a FOD: French Overseas Departments

Table 3

Social characteristics associated with attitudes regarding vaccination in general.

	Strongly in favor	Somewhat in favor	Somewhat not in favor	Not at all in favor	Total
Total	21320 (23.9)	41727 (47.6)	14846 (17.3)	7962 (11.2)	85855 (100)
----------Sex:
Men	11175 (26.7)	18599 (47.2)	6010 (15.9)	3240 (10.2)	39024 (48)
Women	10145 (21.3)	23128 (48)	8836 (18.6)	4722 (12.1)	46831 (52)
----------Age:
18–24	2253 (24.4)	4293 (48.9)	1423 (16.8)	721 (10)	8690 (10.6)
25–34	2145 (19.6)	4894 (46.6)	2065 (19.9)	1204 (13.9)	10308 (13.3)
35–44	3026 (19)	7549 (49.3)	2668 (18.7)	1536 (13)	14779 (15.7)
45–54	3462 (19.5)	8343 (48.2)	3164 (19.7)	1689 (12.6)	16658 (16.5)
55–64	3589 (20.8)	8051 (50.1)	2845 (18.5)	1404 (10.5)	15889 (15.8)
+ 65	6845 (32.6)	8597 (44.9)	2681 (13.5)	1408 (9)	19531 (28.1)
----------Formal education:
No diploma	831 (20)	2025 (44.9)	794 (16.4)	769 (18.7)	4419 (10.8)
Primary education	1663 (24.7)	3373 (48.3)	1118 (15.6)	715 (11.4)	6869 (12.4)
Vocational secondary	3053 (18.4)	8225 (47.5)	3314 (19.2)	2320 (14.9)	16912 (21.1)
High school	4002 (21.6)	9141 (47.9)	3585 (19.2)	1877 (11.2)	18605 (20.8)
High school + 2 to 4 years	6233 (24.7)	12585 (49.6)	4374 (17.9)	1745 (7.8)	24937 (23)
High school + 5 or more years	5538 (38.3)	6378 (45.2)	1661 (12.2)	536 (4.3)	14113 (11.9)
----------Social class:
Farmers	263 (22.1)	616 (50.7)	222 (16.3)	126 (10.9)	1227 (2)
Self-employed and entrepreneurs	1085 (21.9)	2265 (45.9)	950 (19.4)	562 (12.8)	4862 (6.5)
Senior executive professionals	7704 (35.3)	10088 (45.3)	2864 (13.5)	1105 (5.9)	21761 (18.9)
Middle executive professionals	4346 (24.2)	8889 (48.8)	3238 (18)	1420 (9)	17893 (18.3)
Employees	4052 (18.8)	11264 (48.7)	4517 (19.5)	2596 (13)	22429 (27.6)
Manual workers	1551 (17.4)	4713 (47.2)	1910 (18.3)	1531 (17.1)	9705 (16.3)
Never worked and others	2319 (27.5)	3892 (47.9)	1145 (14.6)	622 (10)	7978 (10.5)
----------Standard of living (in deciles):
D1	1269 (20.1)	2748 (44.1)	1152 (18.3)	887 (17.5)	6056 (8.2)
D2-D3	1979 (19.4)	5012 (46.1)	2104 (18.9)	1480 (15.5)	10575 (18.1)
D4-D5	2528 (19.8)	6743 (48.2)	2667 (18.9)	1618 (13.2)	13556 (20)
D6-D7	3959 (22.4)	9222 (49.5)	3395 (17.9)	1692 (10.1)	18268 (21.4)
D8-D9	6503 (27.1)	12071 (49.1)	3892 (16)	1691 (7.7)	24157 (21.9)
D10	5082 (38.4)	5931 (44.7)	1636 (12.2)	594 (4.7)	13243 (10.5)
----------Ethno-racial status:
Majority population	17924 (24.2)	35201 (48.5)	12221 (17.2)	6117 (10.1)	71463 (79.1)
Born or parents born in FODa	194 (18.6)	457 (45)	191 (18.4)	154 (18)	996 (1.3)
Second generation Europe	1132 (22.9)	2261 (48)	870 (18.7)	442 (10.5)	4705 (5.6)
Second generation Africa/Asia	585 (19.8)	1315 (44.6)	560 (19.1)	414 (16.4)	2874 (4.1)
First generation Europe	840 (29.1)	1200 (43.7)	412 (14.9)	278 (12.4)	2730 (4.1)
First generation Africa/Asia	645 (20.4)	1293 (41)	592 (17.9)	557 (20.7)	3087 (5.9)
----------Lives with their children or partner’s children:
At least a child	6987 (19.3)	17033 (49)	6200 (18.8)	3459 (12.8)	33679 (35.5)
No child	14333 (26.4)	24694 (46.8)	8646 (16.5)	4503 (10.3)	52176 (64.5)

a FOD: French Overseas Departments

Overall, age played an important role, especially for older adults, but in different ways: in the 25–64 age group, the proportion of people strongly in favor of vaccination in general was around 20% while the age group 65 and over stood out (32.6% were strongly in favor). In the case of the Covid-19 vaccine, the age gradient was very regular from the age of 25 onwards, ranging from 23.3% for the 25–34 age group to 45.1% for people 65 and over.

On the whole, other social characteristics—such as education, social class, and standard of living—played a similar role: the lower in the social hierarchy, the more reluctant one was to vaccination in general and against the Covid-19 vaccine in particular. In both cases, manual workers stood out: 17.1% were not at all in favor of vaccination in general (versus 5.9% of the Senior executive professionals) and 17.2% said they would most likely not get vaccinated against Covid19 (versus 8.2% of the senior executive professionals).

With regard to ethno-racial status, minorities were always more reluctant to the principle of vaccination, but in different ways: toward vaccination in general, first-generation Africa/Asia immigrants were the most reluctant (27% claimed they were not at all in favor of vaccination in general, compared to 10% in the mainstream population); meanwhile, with regard to the Covid-19 vaccine, it was FOD (French Overseas Departments) natives and descendants of FOD who were the most reluctant (23.7%, compared to 13.3%).

Living with a child increased distrust of the vaccine, especially for Covid-19: 17.4% of people living with at least a child responded certainly not to the question on the Covid-19 vaccine (versus 12% of people with no child).

Finally, it was noted that trust in the government was particularly strongly linked to the attitude toward the Covid-19 vaccine, whereas it was somewhat less significant in the case of vaccination in general.

To better understand the specificity of reluctance to vaccinate against Covid 19, we focused on people who expressed their intention to not be vaccinated.

Women appeared to be more reluctant to vaccination in general than men (OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.26–1.40)), and even more so with regard to the Covid-19 vaccine (OR = 1.88 (95% CI: 1.79–1.97)), although they were more afraid than men of being infected and being seriously ill, than men, and they took a Covid-19 test more often (S1 Table). The presence of a child was also not equally important according to the type of vaccine: it increased the probability of being hostile to Covid-19 vaccine (OR = 0.12 (95% CI: 1.06–1.18) but was not significant for vaccination in general (Table 4).

Table 4

Factors associated with vaccination in general and Covid-19 vaccine refusals.

	Covid vaccine: Certainly not				Vaccination in general: Not at all in favor
	Frequency	OR	95% IC	p-value	Frequency	OR	95% IC	p-value
Total	13.9 (85855)				11.2 (85855)
----------Sex:
Men (ref.)	11 (39024)	1		<0.0001	10.2 (39024)	1		<0.0001
Women	16.6 (46831)	1.88	[1.79–1.97]		12.1 (46831)	1.33	[1.26–1.40]
----------Age:
18–24	18 (8690)	1.05	[0.95–1.16]	<0.0001	10 (8690)	0.74	[0.65–0.84]	<0.0001
25–34	22.4 (10308)	1.32	[1.23–1.41]		13.9 (10308)	1.11	[1.02–1.21]
35–44 (ref.)	18.5 (14779)	1			13 (14779)	1
45–54	14.4 (16658)	0.73	[0.68–0.78]		12.6 (16658)	0.95	[0.88–1.03]
55–64	10.8 (15889)	0.59	[0.54–0.63]		10.5 (15889)	0.83	[0.76–0.90]
+ 65	7.3 (19531)	0.4	[0.36–0.43]		9 (19531)	0.72	[0.66–0.79]
----------Formal education:
No diploma	16.1 (4419)	1.22	[1.10–1.35]	<0.0001	18.7 (4419)	1.53	[1.38–1.69]	<0.0001
Primary education	10.9 (6869)	1	[0.91–1.10]		11.4 (6869)	1.23	[1.11–1.35]
Vocational secondary	15.9 (16912)	1.15	[1.08–1.23]		14.9 (16912)	1.41	[1.31–1.51]
High school (ref.)	16.1 (18605)	1			11.2 (18605)	1
High school + 2 to 4 years	13.5 (24937)	0.81	[0.77–0.87]		7.8 (24937)	0.69	[0.64–0.75]
High school + 5 or more years	8.4 (14113)	0.52	[0.47–0.57]		4.3 (14113)	0.39	[0.35–0.44]
----------Social class:
Farmers	10.9 (1227)	1.1	[0.91–1.34]	<0.0001	10.9 (1227)	1.13	[0.92–1.38]	<0.0001
Self-employed and entrepreneurs	13.5 (4862)	1.18	[1.07–1.30]		12.8 (4862)	1.28	[1.15–1.43]
Senior executive professionals	8.2 (21761)	0.88	[0.82–0.95]		5.9 (21761)	1.01	[0.92–1.10]
Middle executive professionals (ref.)	13.1 (17893)	1			9 (17893)	1
Employees	16.6 (22429)	1.02	[0.96–1.09]		13 (22429)	1.09	[1.01–1.17]
Manual workers	17.2 (9705)	1.14	[1.05–1.23]		17.1 (9705)	1.28	[1.18–1.40]
Never worked and others	14.5 (7978)	0.66	[0.60–0.73]		10 (7978)	0.7	[0.62–0.80]
----------Standard of living (in deciles):
D1	19.4 (6056)	1.07	[0.98–1.16]	<0.0001	17.5 (6056)	1.16	[1.06–1.28]	<0.0001
D2-D3	17.9 (10575)	1.02	[0.95–1.09]		15.5 (10575)	1.07	[0.99–1.16]
D4-D5 (ref.)	16.7 (13556)	1			13.2 (13556)	1
D6-D7	13.4 (18268)	0.93	[0.88–1]		10.1 (18268)	0.9	[0.83–0.97]
D8-D9	10 (24157)	0.81	[0.76–0.87]		7.7 (24157)	0.82	[0.76–0.88]
D10	6.7 (13243)	0.69	[0.63–0.76]		4.7 (13243)	0.69	[0.62–0.77]
----------Ethno-racial status:
Majority population	13.3 (71463)	1		<0.0001	10.1 (71463)	1		<0.0001
Born or parents born in FODa	23.7 (996)	1.66	[1.41–1.95]		18 (996)	1.74	[1.45–2.08]
Second generation Europe	14.3 (4705)	1.17	[1.06–1.28]		10.5 (4705)	1.07	[0.96–1.19]
Second generation Africa/Asia	21.6 (2874)	1.36	[1.23–1.51]		16.4 (2874)	1.61	[1.44–1.80]
First generation Europe	14 (2730)	1.16	[1.03–1.31]		12.4 (2730)	1.28	[1.12–1.46]
First generation Africa/Asia	14.8 (3087)	1.16	[1.04–1.30]		20.7 (3087)	2.19	[1.96–2.43]
----------Lives with their children or partner’s children:
At least a child	17.4 (33679)	1.12	[1.06–1.18]	<0.0001	12.8 (33679)	0.95	[0.89–1]	0.07242
No child (ref.)	12 (52176)	1			10.3 (52176)	1
----------Regarding the possibility of contracting the virus in the coming months, would you say that you are afraid of contracting it and being seriously ill?
Yes	8.9 (20168)	0.57	[0.54–0.61]	<0.0001	7.4 (20168)	0.57	[0.53–0.60]	<0.0001
No (ref.)	15.5 (65687)	1			12.4 (65687)	1
----------To limit the spread of the coronavirus, do you trust the government’s action?:
Yes (ref.)	6.9 (43401)	1		<0.0001	6.5 (43401)	1		<0.0001
No	22.4 (34125)	3.29	[3.13–3.45]		15.5 (34125)	2.68	[2.54–2.83]
You do not know	14.8 (8329)	1.87	[1.74–2.02]		17.1 (8329)	2.31	[2.14–2.49]
----------Do you have any COVID comorbidities?:
Yes	11.7 (26004)	0.89	[0.84–0.93]	<0.0001	10.5 (26004)	0.88	[0.84–0.93]	<0.0001
No (ref.)	15 (59851)	1			11.6 (59851)	1

n = 85855, OR: Odds Ratio,Parameters with a significant odds ratio compared to the reference are in bold.

The regressions were also adjusted on the week of completion of the questionnaire (not shown).

a FOD: French Overseas Departments

The effects of age were also highly significant: the older the respondents were, the less likely they were to be fundamentally hostile to vaccination, although variations remained. It should be noted that while people aged 34 and under were more likely to be reluctant toward Covid-19 vaccine ((OR = 1.32 (95% CI:1.23–1.41)) than toward vaccination in general ((OR = 1.11 (95% CI:1.02–1.21)), the opposite trend was found among those aged 45 and older. Looking at social position, senior executive professionals’ attitude is worth highlighting: their attitude toward vaccination in general was not significant, while the probability that they refused the Covid-19 vaccine was lower than that of middle-executive professionals (OR = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82–0.95)).

A social gradient was found regarding level of education: the higher the degree, the lower the likelihood of being hostile to vaccination, with stronger results for vaccination in general (from OR = 1.53 (95% CI1.38–1.69) for respondents without diploma to OR = 0.39 (95% CI:0.35–0.44) for High school +5 or more years level) than for the Covid-19 vaccine (from OR = 1.22 (95% CI:1.10–1.35) to OR = 0.52 (95% CI:0.47–0.57) for the same levels).

Vaccine reluctance was also related to financial resources. Being in the lowest deciles increased the odds of being fundamentally hostile to vaccination in general (from OR = 1.16 (95% CI: 1.08–1.28) down to OR = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62–0.77)) for the richest); same trend was observed for the Covid-19 vaccine.

The ethno-racial status played an important role. People who did not belong to the so-called mainstream population, i.e., those from the French DOM, immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Africa/Asia, were all more reluctant to vaccination. Interestingly, hostility to the Covid-19 vaccine remained higher than that of the mainstream population, but the differences were less marked (for first-generation Africa/Asia immigrants OR = 1.16 (95% CI:1.04–1.30)) versus OR = 2.19 (95% CI:1.96–2.43)).

Attitudes toward vaccination also depended on a person’s perception of both the disease and the officials in charge of the vaccination policies. As expected, fear of the disease made people less likely to belong to the Covid-19 vaccine-reluctant group (OR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.54–0.61)). The link between trust in the government and trust in vaccination should also be highlighted: those who reported not trusting the government were more likely to be Covid-19 vaccine-reluctant (OR = 3.29 (95% CI: 3.13–3.45)) and more likely to be “not at all in favor” of vaccination in general (OR = 2.68(95% CI: 2.54–2.83)) than those who reported trusting the government.

Discussion

The EpiCoV survey is the first national randomized socio-epidemiological survey of this scale to study the specificity of the response to Covid-19 vaccination, taking into account gender, class, age, and ethno-racial characteristics [11] as well as level of trust in government actions.

Our results showed that Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy was highly, but not totally, correlated with hostility to vaccination in general and had specific social determinants. Based on the distinction between vaccine refusal and hesitancy [12], our analyses highlighted the need to consider reluctants as a specific group, distinct from the hesitants, contrary to what has been done in some recent work [13, 14]. Respondents at the bottom of the social hierarchy were more likely to be reluctant toward Covid-19 vaccination, but to a lesser extent than toward vaccination in general. An important gender specificity was found: women were much more reluctant toward Covid-19 vaccination than toward vaccination in general. Our analyses also showed that trust in government was the variable with the strongest association with reluctance to vaccination against Covid-19, even stronger than for the vaccine in general.

Although France is a country where the prevalence of vaccine reluctance is particularly high, the social characteristics of French people hostile to the Covid-19 vaccine are comparable to those found in other countries. First of all, our results confirmed women’s greater reluctance to COVID-19 vaccination, already observed in other surveys in France [14, 15], in the United Kingdom, in China and in the United States [16, 17]. Though many studies have been able to measure women’s higher reluctance toward the Covid-19 vaccine, only few explanations were provided. First, it should be noted that women’s critical discourse toward vaccination is long-standing and already widely documented: in the 1970s and 1980s, women’s movements in the United States demanded more accurate information and transparency from the government regarding injections offered to their children [18]. Few years ago, a study on anti-vaccination mobilizations on Facebook networks in Australia and North America revealed the very strong presence of women in these activist groups [19]. Women’s greater reluctance to vaccination could also be linked to their "cultural health capital" [20], which reflects a gendered bound to the body, partly resulting from a different socialization process of women and men regarding pain and health [21]. The inclination toward complementary and alternative medicine [22] could thus explain women’s greater reluctance to resort to medical practices over which they have no control.

Our results showed for the first time that this gendered reluctance toward Covid-19 vaccine was much stronger than toward vaccination in general.

At first glance, one could assume that it reflects a reasoned anticipation of the risk of complications. Men were proven to be more likely to contract severe forms of the disease; therefore, women could rightly consider themselves less exposed to the lethality of Covid-19 and therefore less concerned by the need for the vaccine. However, this was not the case. Women were more apprehensive about the disease: according to our survey, they were more afraid than men of contracting the virus and being seriously ill and they took a Covid-19 test more often (S1 Table). If we ruled out the idea that women were less afraid of contracting serious forms, three specific Covid-19 reluctance hypotheses could be formulated.

The first hypothesis was that the vaccine against Covid-19 could pose a threat to maternity plans. In the 25–34 age group, women were more hostile to vaccines in general and even more so to the Covid-19 vaccine. At an age range that is socially devoted to motherhood, women were more concerned about the possible effects an injection of a very recently-developed product in their body could have on a possible pregnancy. This reluctance could be linked to their greater aversion to childhood vaccination [23], as they consider that the intensive mothering practices (feeding, nutrition and natural living) they provided to their children would be preferable to external medical protection [24], thus preferring natural immune defenses over those offered by vaccination. In contrast, as of age 45, the probability of women refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 decreased continuously as age increased, which was not the case with vaccination in general. Once past the social age of motherhood, the fear associated with the consequences of a Covid-19 vaccine injection faded, supporting the hypothesis of gendered reluctance at maternal ages.

The second explanation could be found in the relationship that women have to their social role as caregivers within the family [25]. It was probably for this reason that women living with a child were, regardless of age, even more reluctant to the new vaccine than to vaccines in general [26]. Moreover, getting the Covid-19 vaccine could appear both as a medical intervention and as an external interference in the domestic sphere. Thus, the assignment of women to domestic tasks may have made them more reluctant than men to accept governmental interference, particularly marked for the Covid-19 vaccine, in the private sphere.

The third hypothesis involved a gendered relationship to health and environmental risks, which is also the product of primary socializations [27]. In the case of Covid-19, the large-scale distribution of a messenger RNA vaccine, which was at the centre of daily media debates in November 2020, may have been a greater concern for women than for men because of their stronger aversion to technology-related risks [28]. In the short term, it constituted a guarantee of being protected against Covid-19 for all those who would have benefited from an injection. However, there was still some uncertainty about the long-term effects that could emerge on cell transformation if this type of vaccine were to be generalized every year over a long period of time and to the entire population. The greater reluctance of women to receive the Covid-19 vaccine might have been due to a differentiated socialization making them more sensitive than men to long-term risks that could have a profound effect on the body and health. Conversely, men’s greater inclination toward the Covid-19 vaccine might also have been the result of greater acceptance of technological innovations in genetics [29].

Our survey also showed that reluctance toward Covid-19 vaccination was closely related to other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

As they got older, respondents were less likely to refuse vaccination. But this age effect was even more pronounced for the vaccination against Covid-19, reflecting the fact that older people were much more likely to experience serious complications if contracting the virus.

Respondents with lower levels of education were more likely to be reluctant toward vaccination in general and, to a lesser extent, toward the Covid-19 vaccine. This distrust is partly explained by the fact that members of the working classes have a perception of their body and their health which is more distant from medical diagnoses than in upper classes. The lower magnitude of the social gradient for Covid-19 vaccination may be due to the pandemic and uncertain nature of the disease, which affects all social groups.

The marked income gradient for vaccination in general, as well as for vaccination against Covid-19, even though vaccination is free in France, may reflect the fact that the loss of income in the event of illness would be more important for the rich than for the poor.

Ethno-racial minorities appeared to be more hostile than the majority population to vaccination in general which confirmed studies on the greater reluctance of African Americans in the United States to receive the new vaccine [13]. Numerous studies have shown that ethno-racial minorities have less confidence in the healthcare system and in caregivers than the majority population [30-32]. In the case of France, this mistrust can be explained on the one hand by the weight of its colonial history and the associated pharmaceutical scandals [33], and on the other by discrimination and mistreatment to which these populations may have been exposed when resorting to the public health system [32]. Interestingly, their hostility to the Covid-19 vaccine was less marked than for the vaccine in general. As immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Africa are more often affected by the disease [32], it is likely that this lesser hostility reflects a greater effective proximity to the disease.

Finally, our analyses showed that trust in government was the variable with the strongest effect on reluctance to vaccinate against Covid-19, even stronger than for the vaccine in general. These results confirmed a link between vaccine adherence and trust in government, demonstrated prior to the Covid-19 pandemic [5]. In a country such as France, public authorities have close control over the supply and marketing of vaccines. Therefore, people’s propensity to trust the government, leading actor in the country’s vaccination strategy [5], affected attitudes toward vaccination. The French government has been harshly criticized for failing to anticipate the crisis and for wanting to cover up the lack of masks, claiming until April 2020 that they were not necessary to protect oneself from the virus. The link between confidence in the government—or being close to the governing parties [5]—and vaccination intention was also strengthened when comparing vaccine supplies available in other countries: the vaccination rate in the United States, Israel and other European nations has fueled a feeling of downgrading, undoubtedly deteriorating the citizens’ level of confidence in their government and in its ability to lead a successful vaccination campaign.

It should be added that during the period of the survey, the vaccination campaign was still being developed by French authorities. In the course of November 2020, the main announcement from officials was made from the French President on November 24th, to announce that the vaccination campaign would be “swift” and “massive”, but that getting vaccinated would not be compulsory [34]. It would be coherent to assume that the announcement did not influence the attitude towards the Covid-19 vaccine, and that the link between confidence in the government and reluctance to getting vaccinated was developed before the survey period.

Like all national surveys conducted in the general population, our analysis showed limitations. First, the study could not reach highly vulnerable groups such as the undocumented and the homeless, who were particularly affected by the pandemic [35], especially in France [36]. Furthermore, our analyses did not take into account which sources of information people used to learn about vaccination issues. Misinformation campaigns in the media and on social networks could have influenced vaccination intentions [37, 38]. However, the impact of these discourses were not homogeneous and it could be hypothesized that their effects varied according to social background and gender, somehow reinforcing the results we have obtained. Finally, it is important to note that the survey was conducted shortly before the vaccines were actually made available in France in early January 2021. Attitudes toward vaccination might have changed according to available information on each prototype vaccine and might as well have changed over time [39]. As the number of vaccinated individuals increased, knowing vaccinated people in one’s environment might encourage reluctant individuals to follow suit. However, the scarce studies on the evolution of vaccination intentions over time showed that it was mainly those who were hesitant who were likely to be vaccinated [40]. In the case of France, available data showed that the share of clearly reluctant individuals, those on whom we focused our analyses, remained relatively stable over time between July 2020 and February 2021 [41, 42].

Finally, our results suggest that the vaccination strategy used in France should be reconsidered. It is based exclusively on epidemiological criteria, with priority access to vaccines being reserved initially for the oldest or those with comorbidities. Some groups will be more difficult to convince than others in the vaccination campaign: women, youth, working class, ethno-racial minorities. Specific campaigns should be thought beforehand to reach these people. In particular, ethno-racial minorities are both more exposed to this pandemic and more reluctant to be vaccinated than the majority population, so a major effort must be made to reach them in this vaccination campaign. Failure to take into account the social determinants of reluctance to vaccinate could lead to strengthening social inequalities in terms of morbidity and mortality [43, 44], as well as in terms of care work, mental health, and sexual and reproductive health, which particularly affect women [45].

Covid-19 test and scare of contracting the virus and being seriously ill, according to sex.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-30412The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in FrancePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bajos,

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 Jan 07 2022 11:59PM. 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,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“NB has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. [856478])”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: The manuscript is well written, simple, structured language used, and properly organized. Other than some minor problem mentioned in the comments, this research article is quite interesting and easy to understand.

1. In Page 5, Since the cohort procedure is published in another publication, the phrase "Since the cohort protocol is detailed in another publication," requires a bit more background information.

2. In page 6, It would be better to include the number of people who tested positive for Covid-19 (N=4,036) and whose intention to be vaccinated could be influenced by this fact in the statement "We chose not to include people who tested positive for Covid-19 (N=4,036) and whose intention to be vaccinated could be influenced by this fact."

3. On Page 10, insert a square bracket"]" in the statement "The third hypothesis involved a gendered relationship to health and environmental risks, which is also the product of primary socializations [29."

4. Modify and correct the phrase structure of the statement "The older people were, the less they refused vaccination" on page 11.

5. In page 13, Instead of giving a direct link, such as "“(https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/etudes-et-enquetes/coviprev-une-enquete-pour suivre-l-evolution-des-comportements-et-de-la-sante-mentale-pendant-l-epidemie-de covid- 19#block-249162)” it would be better to make it a reference and cite in.

6. Few references in the text are from 2004 and 2010, and efforts should be made to provide relevant recent references that are no more than five years old.

Reviewer #2: In the current research article entitled "The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France", by Bajos et al., have studied/surveyed opposition toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France. They found that, in France a gendered reluctance toward vaccination in general but even more so regarding vaccination against COVID-19. Further, not only people at the bottom of the social hierarchy but also immigrants and descendants of immigrants were all more reluctant to the Covid-19 vaccine. This article addresses a research topic of great interest, which is under intense investigation in the past 2 years and the manuscript is generally well-written. However, this reviewer has certain suggestions that would help produce a more comprehensive overview of the topic:

Suggestions:

1. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

2. One paragraph can be added to discussion the Government of France efforts to improve COVID-19 vaccination during the survey period.

[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.

16 Dec 2021

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which helped us improve the manuscript.

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

The manuscript was modified so as to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“NB has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. [856478])”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." added to the text in the “Funding details” statement and to the Cover letter.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Data availability

Data of the study are protected under the protection of health data regulation set by the French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, CNIL) in line with the European regulations and the Data Protection Act .

The data can be available upon reasonable request to the co-principal investigator of the study (josiane.warszawski@inserm.fr). The French law forbids us to provide free access to EPICOV data; access could however be given by the EPICOV steering committee after legal verification of the use of the data. Please, feel free to come back to us should you have any additional questions.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

A supporting information file was added, as well as a sentence in the Results section.

Women appeared to be more reluctant to vaccination in general than men (OR=1.33 (95% CI: 1.26-1.40)), and even more so with regard to the Covid-19 vaccine (OR=1.88 (95% CI: 1.79-1.97)), although they were more afraid than men of being infected and being seriously ill, than men, and they took a Covid-19 test more often (S1 Fig).

In the Discussion session, reference was made to S1 Fig.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

We included the reference to Table 3 in the following sentence: “The presence of a child was also not equally important according to the type of vaccine: it increased the probability of being hostile to Covid-19 vaccine (OR=0.12 (95% CI: 1.06-1.18) but was not significant for vaccination in general (Table 3)”

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Following Reviewer #1’s remarks on references cited in the manuscript, a couple of references were removed due to the publication date, and some were replaced by more current research.

● We removed the following:

1. Bertrand A, Torny D. Libertés individuelles et santé collective : Une étude socio-historique de l’obligation vaccinale. Convention CNRS/ DGS SD5C 03-673: CERMES CNRS UMR 8559 – INSERM U502 – EHESS; 2004 p. 109.

32. Boltanski L. Les usages sociaux du corps*. Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 1971;26: 205–233. doi:10.3406/ahess.1971.422470

37. Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J Public Health. 1997;87: 1773–1778.

38. Papon S, Robert-Bobée I. Une hausse des décès deux fois plus forte pour les personnes nées à l’étranger que pour celles nées en France en mars-avril 2020. Insee Focus. 2020 [cited 16 Apr 2021]. Available: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4627049

39. Salmon DA, Moulton LH, Omer SB, DeHart MP, Stokley S, Halsey NA. Factors associated with refusal of childhood vaccines among parents of school-aged children: a case-control study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159: 470–476. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.5.470

40. Marlow LAV, Waller J, Wardle J. Parental attitudes to pre-pubertal HPV vaccination. Vaccine. 2007;25: 1945–1952. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.059

28. Cayouette-Remblière J, Lambert A. L’explosion des inégalités. Classes, genre et générations face à la crise sanitaire. L’aube. 2021

● We replaced the following:

21. Shim JK. Cultural health capital: A theoretical approach to understanding health care interactions and the dynamics of unequal treatment. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51: 1–15. doi:10.1177/0022146509361185

(replaced by

21. Dubbin LA, Chang JS, Shim JK. Cultural health capital and the interactional dynamics of patient-centered care. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.014. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.014)

27. Benin AL, Wisler-Scher DJ, Colson E, Shapiro ED, Holmboe ES. Qualitative Analysis of Mothers’ Decision-Making About Vaccines for Infants: The Importance of Trust. Pediatrics. 2006;117: 1532–1541. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1728

(replaced by

27. Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald N. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2014;14: 99–117. doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.964212)

30. Greenberg MR, Schneider DF. Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. Risk Anal. 1995;15: 503–511. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00343.x

(replaced by

30. Maxfield S, Shapiro M, Gupta V, Hass S. Gender and risk: women, risk taking and risk aversion. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 2010;25: 586–604. doi:10.1108/17542411011081383)

● In-text citations were changed as such:

Page 11, reference in the following “[...] and on the other by discrimination and mistreatment to which these populations may have been exposed when resorting to the public health system” was changed from

37. Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J Public Health. 1997;87: 1773–1778.

to

35. Kazemian S, Fuller S, Algara C. The role of race and scientific trust on support for COVID-19 social distancing measures in the United States. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0254127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254127

Page 12, reference in the following sentence “These results confirmed a link between vaccine adherence and trust in government, demonstrated prior to the Covid-19 pandemic” was changed from

38. Papon S, Robert-Bobée I. Une hausse des décès deux fois plus forte pour les personnes nées à l’étranger que pour celles nées en France en mars-avril 2020. Insee Focus. 2020 [cited 16 Apr 2021]. Available: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4627049

to

Ward JK, Alleaume C, Peretti-Watel P, Peretti-Watel P, Seror V, Cortaredona S, et al. The French public’s attitudes to a future COVID-19 vaccine: The politicization of a public health issue. Social Science & Medicine. 2020;265: 113414. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113414

• We added the following reference

Page 13, reference in the following sentence “In the course of November 2020, the main announcement from officials was made from the French President on November 24th, to announce that the vaccination campaign would be “swift” and “massive”, but that getting vaccinated would not be compulsory” was added

France 24. “We must do everything to avoid a third wave and lockdown,” says Macron. France 24. 24 Nov 2020. Available: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201124-live-macron-addresses-the-nation-on-path-out-of-lockdown. Accessed 6 Dec 2021.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written, simple, structured language used, and properly organized. Other than some minor problem mentioned in the comments, this research article is quite interesting and easy to understand.

1. In Page 5, Since the cohort procedure is published in another publication, the phrase "Since the cohort protocol is detailed in another publication," requires a bit more background information.

Additional information on the cohort protocol was added in the manuscript, namely on how estimators representative of the French population were produced.

Underlined elements were added to the cohort description:

Since the cohort protocol is detailed in another publication [11], only the essential characteristics will be presented. A stratified random sample of 135,000 people aged 15 and over, was drawn from the tax database of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), which covers 96% of the population living in France but excludes people living in institutional settings, participated in a first wave of the study in May 2020. People belonging to the lowest decile of income were over-represented. A total of 134,391 respondents participated in the first wave of the study (May 2020). A second wave was conducted in November 2020, including questions on attitudes toward vaccination. Respondents who took part in the first wave of the study were invited to take part in this second wave. In all, 107,808 respondents participated in this second wave (81.7% of the respondents of the first wave of the study). Individuals were invited to answer the questionnaire online, or by phone for those who did not have Internet access. Furthermore, a random sample of 10% of people with Internet access was interviewed by phone in order to take into account a method collection effect. The results published in the study have been adjusted by applying the weights established by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) and marginal recalibration in the survey and sampling design to correct for non-participation, so as to produce estimators that are representative of the population. More information about the cohort can be found in another publication [11].

2. In page 6, It would be better to include the number of people who tested positive for Covid-19 (N=4,036) and whose intention to be vaccinated could be influenced by this fact in the statement "We chose not to include people who tested positive for Covid-19 (N=4,036) and whose intention to be vaccinated could be influenced by this fact."

After thoughtful consideration, we decided not to include the number of people who tested positive for Covid-19 before the survey. Back in November 2020, the message delivered by the French authorities and later confirmed by instructions given to vaccination centers (https://www.rfcrpv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/N%C2%B0-118-Novembre-2020-f%C3%A9vrier-2021.pdf), was that individuals who had tested positive for Covid-19 a couple of months before, could have to wait a couple of months to be vaccinated. Therefore, as the aim of this article was to study factors associated with reluctance to getting vaccinated, we decided not to include those who had tested positive for Covid-19 in this article, as it is too specific a scenario to be considered with the rest of the population. However, it could be interesting to study, in another article, the attitude of this population on vaccination issues.

3. On Page 10, insert a square bracket"]" in the statement "The third hypothesis involved a gendered relationship to health and environmental risks, which is also the product of primary socializations [29."

A square bracket was inserted.

4. Modify and correct the phrase structure of the statement "The older people were, the less they refused vaccination" on page 11.

The sentence was replaced with “As they got older, respondents were less likely to refuse vaccination.”

5. In page 13, Instead of giving a direct link, such as "“(https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/etudes-et-enquetes/coviprev-une-enquete-pour suivre-l-evolution-des-comportements-et-de-la-sante-mentale-pendant-l-epidemie-de covid- 19#block-249162)” it would be better to make it a reference and cite in.

The reference was added and cited in the reference list.

6. Few references in the text are from 2004 and 2010, and efforts should be made to provide relevant recent references that are no more than five years old.

The reference list was changed according to this comment. References from 2004 and 2010 were removed/replaced by a more current reference.

Reviewer #2: In the current research article entitled "The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France", by Bajos et al., have studied/surveyed opposition toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France. They found that, in France a gendered reluctance toward vaccination in general but even more so regarding vaccination against COVID-19. Further, not only people at the bottom of the social hierarchy but also immigrants and descendants of immigrants were all more reluctant to the Covid-19 vaccine. This article addresses a research topic of great interest, which is under intense investigation in the past 2 years and the manuscript is generally well-written. However, this reviewer has certain suggestions that would help produce a more comprehensive overview of the topic:

Suggestions:

1. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

A flowchart of the national EpiCoV cohort was added (Fig 1) following the Sample information section, so as to provide better understanding of the study design.

2. One paragraph can be added to discussion the Government of France efforts to improve COVID-19 vaccination during the survey period.

The following paragraph has been added in the discussion:

“It should be added that during the period of the survey, the vaccination campaign was still being developed by French authorities. In the course of November 2020, the main announcement from officials was made from the French President on November 24th, to announce that the vaccination campaign would be “swift” and “massive”, but that getting vaccinated would not be compulsory [40]. It would be coherent to assume that the announcement did not influence the attitude towards the Covid-19 vaccine, and that the link between confidence in the government and reluctance to getting vaccinated was developed before the survey period.”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Dec 2021

The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France

PONE-D-21-30412R1

Dear Dr. Bajos,

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,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

27 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-30412R1

The social specificities of hostility toward vaccination against Covid-19 in France

Dear Dr. Bajos:

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. Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE